Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 3

message: Confirmed as Irve.  NYT and Huffington Post have confirmed it.  Unfortunately, I am having trouble citing it.  One such reference is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/03/13/naming-names-what-the-he_e_43351.html.
: That is apparently correct, according to a much older and at least equally reliable printed source, cited in the discussion: 1968 Pot Pourri (Andover, MA: Phillips Academy, 1968), p. 235 gives the name as "Irve Lewis Libby, Jr." and the nickname as "Scooter".  Any alumnus of Phillips Academy can confirm on the website (www.andover.edu) that Mr. Libby himself now prefers the full form of his name to be "I. Lewis Libby, Jr." (the site indicates that the information has been supplied by the alumnus himself).  Why not credit the printed source as to the form of the name that Mr. Libby preferred in 1968 and also respect his current wishes as to the form he would like used? sloko 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Name 

message: From the tag at top: "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 to highly controversial articles." --NYScholar 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agrew with you NYScholar but i dont think that its possible to undo an archiv e even i f its totally retarded. i also wanted to know if you have any clarificaion that Lewis Libby's name was once Leibowitzt becore he changed it to just 'Libby'. Also, it dont htink that its encylcopedic to use a nickname in a serious research article it maeks us look carless a little bit. doe sanyone have any objection to my removing te word "schooter" except as a reference to it JUST being a nickname (dont think that it should in the first paragraph). i think that would make the article 100% much bettered. Smith Jones 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rubbish. If you don't like the archiving, just revert it. Do you know how to do that? 207.107.108.157 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's possible it's probably not advisiable. I have to agree the archiving we ill-advised tho. Indeed, I'm not sure why the page wasn't just moved if the entire page was going to be archived Nil Einne 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page Policy

message: General naive question: when is a source needed, and when it is not.  Someone asked for a source for the fact that he has two children.  Why doesn't anyone also ask for the source for his wife's name?  Please note, just is not a criticism, but a general policy question.  In any event, his lawyer claimed he had two children in closing arguments, noted many places, including here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sholom (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, that sums it up. Numskll 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That does not say he has been "disbarred." It says his licensure is "inactive." Until you have a source that specifically says he is disbarred, we can't say that per WP:BLP. Jokestress 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We can say that he is inactive in that state.  But he may have been inactive in that state for a long period - based on geography.  That is not pertinent to this article.  What would be pertinent if there is a change to his status in Washington DC and/or Virginia - which is where he was practising law prior to joining the administration in 2001. So he should still be listed as a lawyer until there is factual evidence about his status. Davidpatrick 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoever added that provided no source at all for it; a "full citation" is needed: see both WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; I removed it from the article as it is unsourced (acc. to WP:BLP). --NYScholar 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Needed . . . When? 

message: The article needs editiing.  The first sentence in 'Background' is grammatically incorrect.  It should be amended so as to read, "Libby was born into 'a wealthy family.'"  His father was an investment banker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coslow (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Libby 

message: Given that this is a current event, protected page, and a subject that I know very little about, I do not have intentions of editing this page.  However, I would like to pose a question; in the "Indictment, resignation, and trial" section, it states that the maximum penalty may be up to 25 years imprisonment for the 4 felony convictions, while in the next section ("Verdict") it gives a maximum figure of 30 years.  Is this contradictory, and should this be changed to a uniform number?  Thank you for your time.  Vendetta 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting 'maximum penalty'? 

message: The lead only focuses on Libby's conviction. It needs to be rewritten to include other information about Libby. This article is supposed to be a bio. It's not a scandal page. Regards, --Jayzel 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, Libby's notability stems by and large from his crimes. Having said that I do think we need to avoid perjorative labels like "criminal" , however accurate, in the intro. Numskll 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the sentences in the introd. several days ago to remove "criminal" from one of the sentences.  Please see the editing history.  The material added into the box was also, in my view of it, very POV, and that has been removed as well.  This is still a biography of a living person, and it needs to follow WP:BLP.  Injecting POV into this article is not within Wikipedia's most important guideline in editing: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  --NYScholar 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too omitted "criminal" but added his conviction to the first sentence.Numskll 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead sentence now reads: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (born August 22, 1950) is an American lawyer, former White House official, and convicted criminal who was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair.  This is bad style ("...convicted criminal who was convicted..." [?]) and betrays animus.  With minimal changes we could put: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (born August 22, 1950) is an American lawyer and former White House official who was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair.sloko 12:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead needs a rewrite

message: Scooter Libby is an American Jew...why is he not categotized as such is beyond me.  Rumsfeld is listed as Prebyterian and German, Bush is listed as a methodist politician of Hugenot ancestry, Einstein is listed as a Jewish Scientist.  Every black politician is identified as African American.  Why is this being censored??
Scooter being jewish is something that interests alot of people.  If a few racists take that knowledge to try to propagate hate, so be it, but facts should not be censored.  Otherwise, perhaps we should take away arab in the description of osama bin laden, or african american in the description of OJ, least we offend somebody.
Whoever keeps reverting this back should have to explain themselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.132.150 (talk • contribs) 
* It isn't a matter of censorship, it's a matter of verifiability and compliance with WP:BLP, which specifically addresses the use of categories in BLP articles, particularly regarding religion. For a category to be used generally, it must be justified by something reliably sourced in the article. For a religious category in particular, two additional criteria MUST be met: That the subject publicly self-identifies as such, and that their religion is relevant to their notablility. I would agree that there are a lot of labels in other articles that should be removed. However, Osama bin Laden is a bad example. His religion and ethnicity is directly relevant to the jihad that he has launched. - Crockspot 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use caution when removing categories or references to ethnicity. I got a one month block for doing that. Anyways, --Tom 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know the circumstances of your particular block, but my stated reasons for removing the category are well within WP policy, which specifically requires the removal of that category in this instance. But thanks anyway. I know you're just looking out. - Crockspot 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. What got me started was a group of anonymous ips added "Jewish-American" to approximately 800 lead sentences of biographes about 15 months ago. Most got changed back per WP:MOSBIO but many others went unnoiticed for quite some time. So no big deal right? But then somebody(s) had the bright idea of adding that tag and also the category tag to all the criminals of Jewish decent. Anyways, I agree with your above analysis that two wrongs don't make a right. The article as it reads now has a little blerb about Libby belonging to a Temple in Virginia, no big deal. Anyways, my point is that it seems that some folks have an agenda for either including ethnicity or not including ethnicity in these bios depending on their bent. Cheers,--Tom 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I left you a reply on my talk page. I must have missed the part about the temple, because I did not see anything in the article suggesting he was Jewish. Depending on the sourcing of that statement, my removal may be revertable, as long as the two criteria for use of religious cats in WP:BLP are strictly met. - Crockspot 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its reference #17. Its so inocuous(sp?) you don't even notice it which is nice. Like I said, I see instances where ethnicity is slammed into an article for its own sake ignoring article flow and relevance. Anyways, no need to add the category now. If I had my way, categories and lists would be removed but that will never happen and thats ok to I guess. Have you seen this user's take on it? Very well reasoned imho --Tom 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a third criteria according to WP:BLP. Even if true, the category must be relevant to the person's notability in a meaningful way. The fact that some people have speculated about his religion is not enough. If John Ashcroft anoints himself in oil in a public ceremony, then it merits mentioning his religious beliefs. Libby's religion, although a point of curiosity for some people, is not directly related to why he is notable enough to have a bio here on Wikipedia. WP:BLP also suggests that no more than five categories be used in any bio, so that the categories themselves do not lose meaning (although five is not an official rule). According to the sources cited here, he only spoke at a meeting of the Jewish Republicans -- he is not listed as a member. Also, he was not a cabinet member of the Bush administration. Further, it seems that less than half of the current and former cabinet members have their religion listed. Further, simple membership in a house of worship shouldn't constitute public self-identification. Otherwise just about any person who actively practices their religion would be lumped into this category. There is certainly room for either side to argue their point, but I don't think we've met the threshold here.  Notmyrealname 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third criteria has been met, in that his jewish background has led to a flurry of conspiratorical articles in much of the world, and has also been of much interest in the jewish american press.  The Kampeas article is but one of many.  For whatever reason, the connection between neo-conservatism and pro-israel policies has been made by both pro and anti israeli factions, and Libby's ethnic/religious beliefs, him being a prominent architect in the Iraq war, is relevant.  It is similar to noting that a muslim army recruit spying on the USA for terrorists was a muslim-american, and not simply an american spying for terrorists (though with obviously muslim names being common, this is often a moot point).  All three criteria for the category are met.  He is certifiably jewish.  He identifies as jewish by membership in Virginia's largest synagogue. As a pro-Israel neoconservative involved in the Iraq war, his ethnicity is of interest to a significant part of the jewish and gentile community.  http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20051102LibbyJewishSomew.html  Fermat1999 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do too.  Scroll up to the discussion of Libby's first name too; I've finally found an online pdf version of a source cited by the NNDB in its footnote for the temple membership (which Kampeas mentions, w/o that source) as Tulsa Jewish Review 76.10 (vol. 76, no. 10).  I haven't printed it out, but others might want to scour it to see if it really does mention Libby's temple membership and whether or not it cites Kampeas (who published his article "Libby Jewish?" via JTA on Nov. 1-2, 2005).  Which would be the most notable or "primary" secondary source? --NYScholar 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've found what the NNDB is claiming as a "source" for its own information that Libby is "Jewish" (as its bio for Libby states), and, it appears to me, that the TJR is simply summarizing what it found in the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) article by Kampeas: from page 2 of its "What's Nu" column (!):
I. Lewis Libby Jr., a member of the
Reform movement’s Temple Rodef Shalom
in Falls Church, Va., resigned in October
as Vice President Dick Cheney’s top
adviser after he was indicted for perjury.
Libby was charged with lying to a federal
grand jury considering possible charges in
the leaking of a CIA operative’s name two
years ago.
The apositive "a member of the Reform movement's Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va." appears to be taken from Kampeas' JTA article/newswire release, which is re-published in so many other Jewish community newspapers that use the JTA as a resource.  (The TJR added "Reform," which is in the current linked Wiki entry for the temple.)  That is like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia; it is not a reliable secondary source and the NNDB is not providing what Wikipedia:Reliable sources would deem a reliable source for such information of Libby's being Jewish.  Looked at another way, Kampeas (indirectly via the Tulsa Jewish Review news brief) is a source for Libby's being a member of a Jewish temple "Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va."--which is how this current version of the Wikipedia article on Libby reads--and not necessarily of his being Jewish (or born to a Jewish family or converted to Judaism, or self-identified as Jewish otherwise): see earlier Wikipedia users' comments about the distinctions (scroll up).  The temple membership and the controversy pertaining to the question "[Is] Libby Jewish?" are, however, what Kampeas--our current source--documents.  That's what our "reliable source" enables us to state with factual accuracy thus far (not "original research" but verifiably and reliably sourced). Kampeas himself poses his article title as a question: "Libby Jewish?"--though it was altered to a more assumed matter-of-fact question using the previous subtitle in various other versions of his JTA article (some of which later publications edited); e.g., in the Jerusalem Post version several days later: "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA leak Scandal?" (Even that is still rather ambiguous, as the phrase "Libby's Jewishness" could signify "the matter" or "the issue of Libby's Jewishness" (i.e., whether or not he is indeed Jewish).  Even without being Jewish, someone could have such an issue of "their Jewishness" become a controversy in the traditional press and the blogosphere.  But talking about it does not make it so.  We need a more reliable source if one is to state unequivocably that it is a fact that the man "is Jewish" in this Wikipedia article and to include his name in the already-existing category in Wikipedia: "Jewish American lawyers" (I think).  --NYScholar 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity/Religion 

message: The NNDB article on Libby appears to me to be "poorly sourced" (WP:BLP); what is the view of others re: keeping it in this article as an external link? Given that I've just mentioned some of its problems in this talk page, is it useful to be included in the external links for purposes of comparison? I plan to add an annotation by way of qualification. --NYScholar 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The inclusion of the NNDB article on Libby in external links

message: This article claims his first name is "Irve".  Also, during his perjury trial, FBI agent Deborah S. Bond testified that the FBI had had a lot of trouble getting him to reveal what the I. stood for (the trial transcripts should be online by now someplace).  64.160.39.153 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First name

message: Over the last 2 years, I have anonymously edited articles in usually non-political areas such as math contests, the animal kingdom, and medicine.  What led me to register was this article, and what I found to be a shocking level of POV application under the illusion of applying a NPOV policy.
I fully understand that jayjg and slimvirgin have very strong pro-israel views, and i suppose strong pro-zionist views.  That is fair, and as I am sure people with strong anti-semetic views vandalize pages regularly, it is good to have people regularly monitor pages to root out such vandalization.  But what I am finding, in this article in particular, is that these two individuals (and others) seem to want to prevent people from noting that he is jewish because he was convicted of a notorious crime.    All this, despite the fact that ethnicity is noted for basically EVERY american politician in wikipedia (and for that matter, normal encyclopedias).  His ethnicity is of note to much of society, as there has been much written about it outside of the USA and in the jewish american press. As Libby was one of the strongest proponents for the Iraq war, which mainstream paleo-conservatives have consistently felt pro-israel voices helped push, completely ignoring this bit of information many people are interested in, is really a sort of censorship.  This is partically noteworthy, because wiki articles show up first or second for most google searches.
I would buy hiding his ethnicity if this was consistent policy everwhere.  But I have reviewed the edits of jayjg , and there is a strong trend to delete when something might make  a jewish person look bad, and revert when it might make someone that is an anti-zionist or muslim look good.  In addition, he has no problem keeping the jewish american moniker on well respected jewish politicians/celebrities/scientists (even those that don't overly publicize their 'jewishness').  Once again, I respect his right to have strong POV and to push it; I just feel that wikipedia should have strong checks and balances against this sort of selective use of power, to my eyes at least, from very powerful admins.  I would like other people to comment on this.  I understand that if i do take this to arbritation, as a junior member I will probably lose, but it might be worthwhile to see how the process goes if it comes to that.
Just to clarify my opinion, I  feel that with the well documented resources and traditional pattern of american politician articles, that he should be in the category american jews or jewish american politicians.  I don't think that it should be mentioned in the article per se, and listing his membership in a temple is somewhat silly (unless that temple was involved in something remarkable which to my knowledge it was not, other than having a female rabbi).Fermat1999 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fermat, please see the ethnicity discussion above. What happens in other articles really should not be relevant to this article. Inclsusion/exclusion of material is based on guidelines and manuals of style and community consensus. Thanks, --Tom 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jayjg is applying the MOS here. You are arguing that he does the opposite for articles about well respected jewish politicians/celebrities/scientists. Please don't make empty allegations. If you really believe what your saying is true then go through the dispute resolution process and present your evidence instead of disrupting this page. Or better yet, go do something productive. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.181.117 (talk • contribs) 04:03, March 16, 2007 (UTC)
[(Updated: For discussion of this matter, please see archived discussions and more recent section in this talk page below: #Section deleted by another editor. --NYScholar 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective neutral POV application? 

message: Material added to the background section is entirely misleading.  The exchange between King and Libby is not at all evidence that there "is" any factual "relation" between Libby's nickname "Scooter" and "Phil Rizzuto": Libby simply says that King, like others, "ask" him about that; he deflects the possibility by a kind of a joke re: not having the "arm" etc.  In no way is he saying there there there "is" a connection; indeed, he appears to any neutral observer to be saying just the opposite; that there is no relation between his nickname and "Phil Rizzuto."  He says he got "it" (the nickname "Scooter") when he was a child, which would be consistent with other sources already cited.  The second source given simply refers to the same exchange with King.  To cite either of them as if "it has been reported"/the so-called "reports" are accurate or factual is misleading and there is no point in citing them this exchange at all, as it is the opposite of what the background phrases added claim.  I will correct that presentation of this exchange: it shows that even though "some people ask" Libby "if" [interrupted by "crosstalk") "it's related to Phil Rizzuto," clearly Libby is saying that "it" [his nickname "Scooter"] is not "related to Phil Rizzuto": he jokes the suggestion away by saying "I had the range but not the arm."  That is about as far from his agreeing that there is a "relationship" between his nickname and "Phil Rizzuto" as one can get.  Anyone who subsequently used this exchange to "report" that there Libby's nickname "Scooter" derives in any way from a "relation" to "Phil Rizzuto" misconstrues and misrepresents what he says in this exchange with Larry King:
KING: Where did "Scooter" come from?
LIBBY: Oh, it goes way back to when I was a kid. Some people ask me if ...
(CROSSTALK)
LIBBY: ... as you did earlier, if it's related to Phil Rizzuto. I had the range but not the arm.
[I wrote more but an "editing conflict" intervened and it's lost.  An encyclopedia article should not perpetuate an erroneous allusion to an exchange that says the opposite: the Washington Post report does not "cast doubt on" Libby's other references to how he got his name; anyone should be able to see that. --NYScholar 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. The above statement seems a rather WP:POV interpretation. The additional citation from the Washington Post  was included to show that a reporter in a mainstream news organization read the Larry King interview and wrote that it cast doubt on the origin of the nickname. I will leave it to others to read the sources and draw their own conclusions. Notmyrealname 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all very interesting, and I appreciate that the editor has confined his/her comments to the content of my edits. However, the simple issue is that an article in the Washington Post that claims that "Likewise, there are differing accounts of where "Scooter" comes from. He told the New York Times in 2002 that his father, an investment banker now deceased, coined it upon seeing him crawl across his crib. The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil "Scooter" Rizzuto ("I had the range but not the arm," Libby said)." According to WP:A "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." That an editor disputes the author's interpretation is irrelevant. Incidentally, the main source for the other version of the nickname's origin is the New York Times article that contains a much disputed claim about Libby's first name. Again, I encourage other editors to review the sources, Wikipedia policies, and weigh in. Notmyrealname 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The nickname "Scooter"