Talk:Scooter Libby

message: Libby is "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."[8][9]
Well lets see: Cisneros plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, as footnote [9] attests.  Cisneros was the Secretary of HUD, and therefore a member of the cabinet, which is a higher position than Chief of Staff to the VP.  The Secretary of HUD is 13th in succession to the President of the United States, and is approved by the Senate, two concrete measures of "highness". 
I have updated to corrrect this.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Libby's "stumbles" (i.e., felony convictions) are more significant in his bio than are lesser career events in the bios of men who served as President, and about whom there is therefore a much greater quantity of important material.  I'll hazard a guess that, of all people who've heard of Libby, a majority have heard of him only because of Plamegate and its legal fallout.  A comparable statement about any of the ex-Presidents would not be true. JamesMLane t c 05:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Very questionable assertion

message: Whoever deleted the citations from this article needs to restore them.  There are several missing citations due to faulty editing.  Please check the citations formatting and correct these problems.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the problems; replacing the missing citations with the material with the citations; many citations were missing, in some cases, multiple references to the same source.  Please be more careful and check the citations (notes) when making changes and make sure that you are not deleting already-verified reliable third-party published sources.  See WP:Citing sources and earlier editing history for sources used in this article.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of citations due to faulty editing

message: According to two sources, the man was born Irving Lewis Liebowitz.  For personal reasons, he declines to use his first name, Irving, and changed his last name from the Jewish-sounding Liebowitz.  This many be of some interest to readers.  --72.75.115.17 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irving Lewis Liebowitz

message: The first episode of the third season is called "My Name Is Inmate 28301-016", and searching in internet i found the inmate 28301-016 is called Lewis Libby (the same guy?).   is it a coincidence of was on purpose?--200.104.161.230 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My name is Earl

message: Is it me or does this article seem ridiculously over wikified? Do we need to internally link EVERY date? Also, is the dating format up to "standard"? I'll admit that I am not up to snuff on dating conventons, one of many areas that I haven't passed the Wki bar on yet :) Cheers, --Tom 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interanl Wiki links

message: This article seems a bit long even for a convicted felon--Levineps (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate article(s) and decrease size 

message: I was reading the criticisms section, and the wording seemed to cite the editorial from Christopher Hitchens for Armitage being the leak rather than the derived criticism. I've added a reference for the fact to clarify this. As a criticism section, it's appropriate to cite his argument, it just wasn't clear that this was happening. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is hitchens cited for the Armitage point? 

message: I've removed the following, which was appended  to the "Notes" section of the article:Please note CIA personnel are case operatives or whatever you like but they are notItalic text "agents."  Agents are the people they have turned to work for them.  FBI personnel are indeed "agents," hence, the confusion.
This comment was added by an anon.  I have no idea whether the statement comment is correct, or whether anything in the article should be modified accordingly, but the comment obviously doesn't belong in the article itself. JamesMLane t c 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: "CIA agent" 

message: Citation #43 "Judith Miller and the Neocons" needs to be removed for the following reasons: It does not support its cited claim "Months later, however, her new attorney, Robert Bennett, told her that she already had possessed a written, voluntary waiver from Libby all along." Nowhere in the article does it mention that. Also it is being used as a citation for what the "I" in I. Lewis Libby stands for which already has 5 other citaions.  Additionally, i doubt Juan Cole is really authoritative on Libby's name.  Finally, the piece itself is about Judith Miller, not Libby, and as such is not the best reference.  I am removing this citation for those reasons.  Bonewah (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judith Miller and the Neocons"  is not a good source 

message: The URL targeted in citation #8 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810 brings up "Page Unavailable". The article does seem to have existed - google brings up this link purporting to reprint the article in its entirety: http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002685.php.
Anybody know how to get this article link working again? There are 5 points in the wiki article where the article is cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try the way back machine at www.archive.org.  If that doesnt work, at least add a  tag.  Bonewah (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to ABC/AP article by Sniffen and Apuzzo is dead 

message: is in need of editing for tone and WP:NPOV  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Paragraph 

message: In my opinion the length of the lead should be shortened by half. Strive for a CONCISE summary of content... Carrite (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have significantly shortened the lede. If there are things missing from the lede (or elsewhere), editors are welcome to add them, but three whole paragraphs on his sentencing, disbarment, and subsequent examination of his ability to practice law again, was excessive. That kind of detail goes in the article alone. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead excessively long

message: Even when someone has been convicted, isn't it normal to say "Scooter Libby was a high-ranking official etc who was convicted for ...", rather than labelling him as a convicted felon first (as though that's the most important thing he did)? Bigpeteb (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By comparison, the article on John Dean does not mention the felon convictions until the third sentence. Roger (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The ridiculous thing is starting an article on a living person in the past tense. If that's how another article does it then it's a good reason to change that article, not copy bad style to this one. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you ever read WP articles? Most famous people are famous for something in the past. Please try to achieve a consensus. Roger (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a silly argument. Of course people are famous for things they did in the past, but as long as they're still living they should still be referred to in the present tense. There is a consensus for using good grammar on WP and I suggest you follow it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the correct way to deal with living people who no longer occupy their position of notability is to say "X is a former..." rather "X was a...". The latter formula is used after they die.   Will Beback  talk   16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty of guilt 

message: hey all. I assume this one has been hashed over, but if not, here's my say. The lead photo is somewhat inappropriate. It seems more like a PR or campaign glossy than a neutral image. To let everyone know I think I would call myself unbiased on this one. I'm not a left wing Republican basher and I'm not a radical on the right. I think Libby is guilty and should never have been allowed to serve and should have finished his sentence. On the other hand I don't know that he was part of some right-wing conspiracy to take over the world. So, a better image would show him in a neutral context (not tan and smiling and not grimacing or holding a newspaper over his face. I know we don't have copyright but some samples might look like; Libby Neutral 1 or Libby Neutral 2--Canadiandy talk 06:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a better photo? 

message: Some major revisions are warranted.  Sec. of Powell knew of the source of the the Plame leak, it was his very own under secretary.  The Libby story is far from finished and needs serious analysis and review.
Elliott Widaski  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.82.176 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney's Book, Sec. of State Powell 

message: Is this interesting for the article: http://www.hudson.org/experts/601-lewis-libby  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.90.194 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent career 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Scooter Libby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241744137262638
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lead says: "Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury concerning the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[4][5][6] Plame's position at the CIA was considered classified information." If this quoted piece remains in the lead, then the lead should also briefly mention whether he was convicted of that leak, or not.  The current implication is that he was indeed convicted of leaking Plame's identity, and if that's not true then it needs to be corrected in the lead.  Also, was there allegedly only one leak in the Plame affair as the lead currently says ("the leak"); I thought there was an alleged leak to Novak and another alleged leak to Miller.  If the lead is going to mention a leak, let's briefly say to whom the leak was made (or allegedly made).  These seem like critical deficiencies in the lead.
As other editors have said above, the lead is presently very long, and full of excess information that is not critically important.  For example, the lead says:
The lead is supposed to summarize, so why not just say that, as a result of his conviction, he lost his licenses to practice law at least temporarily, and let readers get the minute details later in the BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead is ambiguous and too long

message: Like most states, Washington, D.C. does not have permanent disbarment. I fixed the instances where I saw “permanent disbarment” to just “disbarment”. Also, I don’t believe the D.C. Bar imposes attorney discipline, though I’m going to double-check this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.231.28.5 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems regarding section on Libby’s disbarment

message: Apparently, the WSJ Editorial Board thinks so? Via NY Sun: https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-scooter-libby-pardon/90236/
Xerton (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "later exonerated and subsequently pardoned" I'd like to see this article make that more clear. Right now, there's too much emphasis on the original conviction; the real story is the unjust treatment which he endured. Xerton (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Scooter Libby falsely convicted?

message: This article suffers from WP:TOOMANYREFS. We don't need multiple citations for any single concise statement. I removed two of three citations planted after a short sentence at the end of the lede section. The sentence reads  
# I removed the Daily Wire citation because that source is labeled as generally unreliable in WP:RSP and should not generally be used.
# I have removed the second citation because it was also repeated in the article's section "Restoration of voting rights, law license, and presidential pardon", where I have left it alone. There is no need to duplicate citations in the lede as well as in the body (for which the lede is a summary). Per MOS:LEAD, one may include citations in the lede: . As such, I have left one citation in the lede — the one that is most helpful with a title of "Trump pardons ex-Cheney aide Scooter Libby".
Platonk (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of edit