Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 4

message: Independent of the dispute with Jayjg, I have noticed that there has been recent vandalism to this article by anon IP users, and, for the time being, until it quiets down, I have restored the semi-protection template on the article page.  Doing so has nothing to do with the previous disputed content issues.  Those are discussed fully (I think) in the archives pages 2-3. --NYScholar 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection tag

message: For those that have not weighed in on the debate, what is your opinion on the matter.  I think that the category american jews or jewish amerian lawyers should be used.  I don't think a disussion in the article is warranted, unless someone wants to discuss how anti-semitic groups tried to use this information as a propaganda tool.  In regards to consistency in other articles:
Dick Cheney - described as methodist, despite not being in your face religious
Donald Rumsfeld - described as presbyterian, despite not publicizing his religion
George Bush - methodist and hugenout ancestry
Condy Rice - African American and presbyterian
Henry Paulson - Christian Science follower
Roberto Gonzalez - Mexican and Roman Catholic
Dick Kempthorne - methodist
Spencer Abraham - arab/lebanese/syrian and orthodox christian 
Karl Rove - not mentioned, but norwegian stepfather is, as is conflict with catholic girl when young, implying protestant
ad nauseum... Fermat1999 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to another user's recent posting of WP:BLPN#Lewis_Libby, I had already tried what you suggest ("unless someone wants to discuss....")--see Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor but Jayjg deleted that and the source provided for it throughout the article.  See subsequent discussion below (as well as earlier archive pages' discussions of same issues). --NYScholar 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion - ethnicity/religion categorization

message: See WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:BLP#Use of categories.  Discussion and reliable sources (in controversial articles "full citations") are required in the article substantiating the rationale for the use of categories according to Wikipedia policies in Wikipedia:Citations; Wikipedia:Attribution:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
Please read the rest of the material in those sections of WP:BLP in conjunction with both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. Thank you.  --NYScholar 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of categories

message: I've looked at some of the articles listed by Fermat above and, on the basis of those precedents in Wikipedia articles on living persons, and in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures, restored the brief reference that I added some time ago to the "Personal history": "Background" section, citing Libby's temple membership (with links in text and appropriate ref. sources) [that is to say: his religious affiliation(s)]--[Updated: to clarify  what I mean here: --NYScholar 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, none of these articles mention the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NNDB is not a reliable source. The Cheney article mentions a denomination, not a specific church. Please specifically state other articles which mention  the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? A glance through the articles you've listed indicate that few, if any, do so. You've made a claim, now back it up. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You've made false claims that other articles mentioned which specific church/temple etc. a public figure belongs to. You don't back them up because you can't. The rest of your claims are equally false. Please desist from further WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violating disruption. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course you made that claim, in this edit. It's in this very section, why do you claim any different? You specifically mentioned those articles as precedents for listing the specific church/temple that an individual belonged to; yet none of the articles actually do that. Please stop wasting time with obvious falsehoods. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You claimed precedent for citing the specific church/temple a person belonged to. You clearly had none. If you want to stop discussing this, you're free to. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Condoleeza Rice#Early life and education: currently reads:
Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and his wife, the former Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by her father. Angelena was a science, music and oratory teacher at Ullman.
Apparently, that last sentence is not accurate; "her father" is "Reverend Rice"; it should read "his father."[italics added: See source for that information Condoleeza Rice at notable biographies.com]; the Wikipedia entry appears to have a typographical error, which I will correct in a moment.]  Clearly, while growing up, Condoleeza Rice would have attended the specific church that her grandfather founded, named in the article.  (It would seem redundant to say that.)  Moreover, this church is specifically mentioned by name.  Granted, religious faith appears to be far more prominent a factor in her life than it may appear to have been in the life of Lewis Libby, for whom Ron Kampeas' sources say kept a "low profile" [at the White House, leading to "misapprehension" about his "Jewishness" (or degree of lack thereof)--whatever the case may be]; however, the Wikipedia on Rice presents a precedent for mentioning churches (or temples) by name, especially when they are matters of fact and pertinent specified reliably in the verifiable source being cited as evidence of it (e.g., in the case of Libby, Ron Kampeas' article duly noted). --NYScholar 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Wikipedia has an article and disambiguation for Westminster Presbyterian Church, but the one founded by C. Rice's father is not yet a subject of a Wikipedia article; I removed the link [corrected my typographical error; I didn't save the link in the version of the C. Rice article where the name of the church currently appears], though others may want to add a proper link if an article on that specific church is added to Wikipedia in the future. --NYScholar 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles as precedents for mentioning affiliation with a church or practice of a faith

message: :From what I can tell, none of these articles mention the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NNDB is not a reliable source. The Cheney article mentions a denomination, not a specific church. Please specifically state other articles which mention  the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? A glance through the articles you've listed indicate that few, if any, do so. You've made a claim, now back it up. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You've made false claims that other articles mentioned which specific church/temple etc. a public figure belongs to. You don't back them up because you can't. The rest of your claims are equally false. Please desist from further WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violating disruption. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course you made that claim, in this edit. It's in this very section, why do you claim any different? You specifically mentioned those articles as precedents for listing the specific church/temple that an individual belonged to; yet none of the articles actually do that. Please stop wasting time with obvious falsehoods. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You claimed precedent for citing the specific church/temple a person belonged to. You clearly had none. If you want to stop discussing this, you're free to. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Condoleeza Rice#Early life and education: currently reads:
Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and his wife, the former Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by her father. Angelena was a science, music and oratory teacher at Ullman.
Apparently, that last sentence is not accurate; "her father" is "Reverend Rice"; it should read "his father."[italics added: See source for that information Condoleeza Rice at notable biographies.com]; the Wikipedia entry appears to have a typographical error, which I will correct in a moment.]  Clearly, while growing up, Condoleeza Rice would have attended the specific church that her grandfather founded, named in the article.  (It would seem redundant to say that.)  Moreover, this church is specifically mentioned by name.  Granted, religious faith appears to be far more prominent a factor in her life than it may appear to have been in the life of Lewis Libby, for whom Ron Kampeas' sources say kept a "low profile" [at the White House, leading to "misapprehension" about his "Jewishness" (or degree of lack thereof)--whatever the case may be]; however, the Wikipedia on Rice presents a precedent for mentioning churches (or temples) by name, especially when they are matters of fact and pertinent specified reliably in the verifiable source being cited as evidence of it (e.g., in the case of Libby, Ron Kampeas' article duly noted). --NYScholar 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Wikipedia has an article and disambiguation for Westminster Presbyterian Church, but the one founded by C. Rice's father is not yet a subject of a Wikipedia article; I removed the link [corrected my typographical error; I didn't save the link in the version of the C. Rice article where the name of the church currently appears], though others may want to add a proper link if an article on that specific church is added to Wikipedia in the future. --NYScholar 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I did so because it's the standard form of the infobox , all articles with this infobox should contain charge and penalty, pursuant to WP:CRIME, look at other criminal articles like Unabomber, Ted Bundy, Ken Lay, etc. And indeed, he is a criminal, so the box is suitable for him. Wooyi 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  (Please provide such explanations in the editing history and talk page as per the talkheader and tagged notices.)  I have been wondering about that material each time it's been reverted.  If others want to discuss improving the presentation of what is provided in the infobox, this section of this talk page is a possible place to do it. --NYScholar 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I added the charges and penalty back 

message: What other pages do is not really relevant for this page. Precedents are a legal concept, not Wikipedia policy. There is no official policy that public figures should have their faith listed. As examples from Cabinet members of George W Bush that do not mention religion: Paul O'Neill (cabinet member), John W. Snow, Henry Paulson, Robert Gates, Gale Norton, Ann Veneman, Donald Evans, Carlos Gutierrez, Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Margaret Spellings, Alphonso Jackson, Norman Mineta, Mary Peters (politician), Spencer Abraham, Samuel Bodman, and Anthony Principi. None of the others that DO include such references mention the specific congregation that they are members of. That seems like a pretty obvious violation of WP:BLP. Personally, I think that few of the cases where religion is mentioned is really justified according to WP:BLP (and keep in mind, Libby was not a cabinet member). However, the matter at hand is whether it is relevant here. Notmyrealname 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of  those examples (spencer abraham) actually do have their religions noted.  Abraham, being arab, is of particular interest to many Americans.  And most of the others have references to their ethnicity tossed in (hispanic/cuban, japanese, arab, etc).  In modern parlance, jewish is as much ethnicity as it is religion - certainly Einstein, Woodly Allen and Jon Stewart are all considered jewish even if they don't believe in G-d.  Lastly, anyone of particular notorierty has more detailed biographies outlining personal background just from increased public interest. Fermat1999 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Abraham only has his religion listed in the categories section. Since there's no support of it (or reliable sourcing) in the article itself, it would appear to violate WP:BIO as well. In the case of the others you mention, Einstein had to flee Europe because he was Jewish, Allen and Stewart have very explicitly made their Jewishness part of their public personae. WP:BIO says that categories should be used judiciously, need to be incorporated in the articles themselves, and need to be properly sourced. However, religion and sexual preference notably have further restrictions. I'm not aware of anyone having their particular house of worship included. That seems an obvious no-no. Notmyrealname 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles as precedents for NOT mentioning affiliation with a church or practice of a faith

message: In contradistinction to some of the rather absurd comparisons being made in the tit-for-tat previous section added by an longtime opponent of citing any discussion of "Libby's Jewishness," or including Libby in the category of "Jewish American lawyers" (others' attempts continually being reverted by basically the same two users), I will observe that the word precedent has ordinary, non-technical, everyday English-language usage that does not denote only "legal" denotations; I used the word in its everyday sense of something that precedes or that might serve as an example of prior use (in the general sense); the attempt at claiming so-called WP:Wikilawyering#Negative connotations--a common ruse of this opposition--just boggles the mind.  I did not insert a Wikified link for my use of the word precedent and I intended no such strictly-"legal" sense; I meant it in the everyday ordinary general usage that I just stated.  Please look up words in a print dictionary, not just online and in Wikipedia (Wikipedia, it should be clear by now, is hardly an accepted reliable source).  And try to be sensitive to rational argument.  This opposition to referring to what Kampeas discusses in his article is beyond the pale. --NYScholar 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Case in point: the Wikipedia article on Libby's successor states that VP Cheney's new chief of staff, David Addington, is described "by U.S. News and World Report as 'the most powerful man you've never heard of'" and the article on him is very brief, as are the articles for the other three men listed there.  These subjects are not comparable to Libby in notability, obviously, or even as public figures in Wikipedia.  Libby has become a far more notorious public figure as a result of the Plame affair and United States v. Libby than any of those others in comparable positions.  The degree of detail in an article about him is, by virtue of that fact, going to differ considerably than Wikipedia's articles on any of them, and the degree of necessity to develop neutral-language, reliably-sourced discussion of related controversies WP:POV also, by virtue of that fact, differs. --NYScholar 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The original list cited Bush cabinet members, as did mine. The original list included Dirk Kempthorne and Spencer Abraham. These are hardly household names, nor do they have very long Wiki articles. Notmyrealname 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You said the two lists were not comparable. I showed that they are. Most dictionaries (on and off line) show the legalistic definition of precedent as the first entry. In any case, citing a handful of other wikipedia entries is not relevant here. In many cases (e.g. Spencer Abraham) the listing of a religious category is directly in violation of WP:BLP as it is not mentioned in the article, there is no citation, and there is no evidence of his public acknowledgment. No point in repeating errors here, even if they are quite common. The only relevant thing to cite is wikipedia policy itself. Notmyrealname 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents

message: Which I have done and am doing, many times over now: WP:BLP#Public figures, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  Anything else is a red herring.  Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed in many of the articles that I and others have been citing as "precedents" (in the general sense of prior examples), illustrating the application of Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines in such controversial articles as this one, on Lewis Libby, a public figure who was a powerful member of the executive branch of the United States government, in this case in the administration of George W. Bush and who, in this case, is notable primarily due to his policy-making role in that administration and his subsequent conviction for four federal felonies directly relating to his role as the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, the VP's assistant for security affairs, and assistant to President Bush (all prior to his resignation after his indictment).  --NYScholar 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The only relevant thing to cite is wikipedia policy itself"

message: --NYScholar 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar, you must have repeated this material on various Talk: pages at least a dozen times now. People can see page histories, and your constant repetition is not only disruptive, but probably a violation of U.S. "fair use" laws. In the future just provide a link to the material in question; I'll be deleting it every time it appears on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. In particular please note WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. As has been pointed out, the relevance of Libby's alleged "Jewishness" seems mostly relevant to neo-Nazi message boards, where they push the notion of a Jewish cabal running America. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that some neo nazis might make a note of this is irrelevant.  If Libby was non-jewish, he would be described as someone bought out by jews.  If anything, this bizarre censorship plays into neo-nazi stereotypes "look at how wikipedia censors this".  I wasn't even aware of all this excessive accusations of a jewish cabal until you started mentioning it, and a bit of googling found a whole slew of racist sites.  But I digress.  The notion that someone's identity should be hidden on an encyclopedia so fringe groups can't make their fringe arguments is awful.  Perhaps muslims can say that reporting terrorist attacks is dangeorus, because anti-muslim groups can use them for propaganda (and i'll bet that wiki is referenced on those pages).  Anyways, you are strongly in the wrong here, and your obvious biases and possible paranoia (sp?) in my opinion is leading you to believe that this sort of censorship is for the greater good.  It is, I'm afraid, not, despite possible good intentions at heart.  And lastly, alot of people are interested in the ethnicity and religion of their high level officials.  Blacks, East Asians and Latinos normally do not have the luxury of 'hiding' their ethnicity, nor do most muslims.  So defacto, these individuals are 'outed'.  To find out if someone is jewish, we normally need a reliable source describing him/her as such without a reliable source also contradicting it.  We hav that in this case. Fermat1999 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You ask why "someone's identity should be hidden"? What an extraordinary thing to say. Is Libby's "identity" now that of an alleged Jew? Libby the Jew? Even in the one article that speculates about it, it makes clear that he himself has never referred to it or given any indication of it. As for your statements about "paranoia", "censorship", etc., please observe WP:CIVIL, which is policy, and then re-read WP:BLP, and try to think of exactly why Libby's alleged Jewish "identity" is relevant to his notability. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Carl Sagan's "Jewish 'identity' relevant to his notability" and career as an astronomer?  NO, of course not, yet he is categorized twice as a Jew with no problem whatsoever.  You and others have no problem adding these Jewish categories to that article and nearly every other article where the person is a Jew, yet here you resist...why is that?  Basically everything else that is publically known about Libby is in this article (including his status as a Jew), just look at the length and depth of the article for such a 'minor figure.' But when it comes to this article (along with others), why do you continue your blatant censorship Jayjg?  Face it Jayjg: you are clearly practicing censorship in this case, and you practiced it in the case of the (former) List of Jewish American businesspeople article/list, and on numerous other occasions here on Wikipedia. Your behavior down this twisted path of censorship, irrationality, and utter ridiculousness is now spiraling out-of-control and only exposes you as the ruthless censor that you are. I believe that even now you are beginning to recognize your own administrative shortcomings and thus should take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak (if only to allow yourself some time to reflect upon you irrational actions, your inability to maintain a NPOV, and also to examine a possible Wiki-addiction on your part). Also, please note that WP:NOT#CENSOR is a POLICY (NOT A GUIDELINE) that you should clearly examine again. It is not YOUR call Jayjg to decide "what is notable" based upon your own personal whims -- this is an encyclopedia...if it is a known fact (and defining Libby as a "Jewish American lawyer" is indeed a fact) it belongs in the article: case closed.  --WassermannNYC 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have spoken to you about WP:CIVIL many times now, yet you insist on ignoring it. I am busy now, but will deal with this issue soon. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article, from the JTA, states he is jewish as a matter of fact, and mentions that Libby belongs to a synagogue. There has been no refute to this in any media. The jewishvirtuallibrary has listed him as jewish since 2002...before WIKI!(please see links to archived pages in the archives of this discussion, that another editor provided). Libby, for whatever reason, may not want the world to know that he is jewish (he probably is just private), but as a public figure, that does not mean that this info should not be published in a bio/encylopedic article about him. I'm sure he's not a big fan about his criminal conviction being all public either. Other major politicians may not want background info out there either (did obama want it publicized that his atheist father was of muslim ancestry to the american masses? I'm not sure if he did, though of course his one mention of it is well detailed in wiki), but they are still published. Basic ethnic background/identification is standard for major politicians. It is why Rumsfeld is described as German, JFK Irish, ad nauseum. I am also sure that you are aware of Adbusters, a mainstream left wing consumer advocate magazine from Western Canada (I'm Canadian) that 5 or so years ago published a list of neo-cons, and listed Libby as jewish (i had to bring up the article online to confirm that they in fact did list him). While personally offensive and causing a lot of controversy at the time, it does suggest strong interest from a mainstream audience; if admittedly left wing. While you and I might see that incident having currents of maybe unintended or intended anti-semitism, that is merely my/your POV. And in regards to my being CIVIL, I am afraid that some of your curt/rude comments, and even insinuating anti-semitism from some editors with long standing histories with no concrete evidence at all, goes way beyond the pale. Provoking anger by offensive comments and edits, and then taking advantage of that other person's anger is not a fair game jayjg. It can be contrued to be in poor faith. Fermat1999 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis Libby is not a "major politician", and ethnic/background is hardly "standard"; we don't list Gerald Ford's ethnic background or religion, for example, and he was the President. As for the rest, I haven't insinuated antisemitism, and there's no justification for your incivility. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerald Ford IS listed as English American (ethnicity) and Espicopalian (religion) - check the categories.  They have been there for a long time.  And Libby is a major public figure/politician, as he is at the centre of the biggest scandal in DC in at least a year.  Even before this, as head of chief of staff of what many consider the most powerful VP in history, he was notable but not so prominent. And in regards to not making an acusation of anti-semitism, how am I (we) supposed to take your comment about "Libby the Jew" or "yellow badge"?  I don't even think that his 'jewishness' should be so much in the article, if at all anyways...just among the categories in the bottom.Fermat1999 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about Ford, but then again, he was the President, Libby wasn't. How about a more relevant individual, say John N. Mitchell? Regarding "Libby the Jew" or "yellow badge", again, attempts to identify Libby as a Jew are odd, unless you think it is "relevant to his notability", which is a requirement of WP:BLP, as explained above. Do you think it is "relevant to his notability"? Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using Mitchell as a comparison is that his crime was in the early 1970s, and he died in 1988.  In fact, the year he died, many of the more active wiki users were between 5-15 yrs of age.  Few were born, or were mere toddlers, when his crime was committed.  In addition to that, online reliable sources are harder to find on non prez/vp older officials of note.  I would be pretty darn sure that if he was attorney general now, his ethnicity and religion would be categorized as is the case with the most recent attorney generals(Barr is listed as roman catholic, John Ashcroft is listed as norwegian and pentecostal, Reno as Danish (emphasized in article as 1 of 2 in cabinet) and Gonzales as mexican and roman catholic).  And in terms on notability, it's as notable as if he is married, has children, other typical basic bio stuff.  People are interested in these bio details. Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note, though it seems in the Kampeas article that any neo-con sensibilities he has are minimally influenced by religious beliefs.  In the meanwhile, I'll try to get some basic data and perhaps update Mitchell's bio.  Fermat1999 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your responses are interesting, but have nothing to do with policy. I'm sure people are interested in all sorts of things; ethnicity, religion, sex lives, minor scandals, embarrassing allegations, paparazzi pictures, etc. However, WP:BLP is quite clear; only things that are "relevant to his notability" should be mentioned. Exactly who are the people who you refer to when you say "Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note"? Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I will of course disagree in general with your stance (we can agree to disagree at least), I think your argument would be of stonger strength if you applied this policy to people of all backgrounds, not almost exclusively in cases involving jewish people or the israeli/palestinian conflict.  As you are a current admin and even a former arbcom member, I would expect better.  For example, in the Robert Fisk article, there seems to be undue weight to a CAMERA opinion/quotation about him (CAMERA is considered a strongly partisan group with relatively little International exposure) and your strong promotion of it's inclusion.  It's inclusion in an article of a journalist (not even a major world figure) seems to break wiki policy for undue weight (the whole article, including the pro FISK stiff seems way too long for that matter).  The inclusion of his wife being Afghani also seems to suggest 'duel loyalties' (look - he's married to an afghan!!).  What I am suggesting is that we all have biases about selectively applying WP rules, and that when it comes to editing, sometimes it is best to have a neutral observor or the arbs comittee decide what is fair.  For the record, I think that every prominent figure should have their ethnicity/religion listed if there is a reliable source.  If somehow fringe anti-islamists, anti-zionists, anti-evangilicals or whatever use that real information for their propaganda, so be it.  And for those that find his religous notability interesting:  many jewish people (as suggested by Kampeas), left wing groups (suggested by addbusters),  newspapers in much of Europe, Asia and the Islamic world, paleoconseratives, and some prominent political scientists (Mearsheimer/Walt types).  And yes, also some anti-semitic groups (but they will blame jews no matter what the truth is).  Don't you think that being jewish and strongly influencing MidEast/Israel policy is not possibly notable?  Zalmay Khalizad is by most accounts a non-practicing muslim, yet that is highlighted in the 2nd line of his opening article; in no small part because he is a presumed influential politician on US mideast politics. Fermat1999 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note" - what kind of conspiratorial nonsense is this? FYI, Jews hold the entire spectrum of opinions on anything. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Humus sapiens comments above. WP:BLP applies. As for Fisk and CAMERA, the material in question was not bringing up irrelevancies about Fisk's religion or ethnicity, but was giving CAMERA's opinion about some of his controversial statements. There's no comparison between the two. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  That article brought up the irrelevancies of his wife's ethnicity (to imply that his afghani wife gives Fisk an 'otherness' that clouds his opinions; not neutral AND not even his own ethnicity). Imagine if prominent politicians were described as having a jewish wife in an opening paragraph!!  And the undue weight to CAMERA is comparable to your accusuation of undue weight to NYSCHOLAR adding the JTA article in a one paragraph piece in the libby article.  Does an obscure piece by CAMERA deserve a WHOLE paragraph on a journalist? He is not even a noted politician/convicted criminal like Libby.  And for the record, I did't think a whole paragraph on Libby's jewishness was warranted either.  Fermat1999 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly jewish people have a whole range of opinions.  Where did I even suggest otherwise??  However, being of a certain background (ethnic/racial) certainly can have an influence on one's opinions.  The average jewish person is more likely to be zionist than the average muslim, or the average korean for that mattter.  An african american is more likely to support affirmative action than say a white american or asian american (polls have shown this consistently).  For that reason, some people might be interested in knowing Libby's background - did a jewish background or fundamentalist christian background influence his politics?  I'm not sure that they did actually, but we should provide the honest concrete facts and let people decide with all the information available.  And lastly, I am becoming aware that many editors are sensitive about jewish topics because of the fear of anti-semitism.  To that, I would like to say that not everyone is an anti-semite simply because they want to provide basic bio detail on a prominent public figure.  And that no ethnic group/religion should be treated differently (either in a preferential or a "demeaning" manner). Fermat1999 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I realize this is a very touchy issue, I would like to kindly express my opinion on it.  Personally, I think we should have him in a category or two that identifies his religion, as there appears to be many, many other categories for all kinds of religions, and there are all kinds of people in those categories.  It seems to me that what people are upset about is not so much that we are categorizing people under certain religions, but that we are categorizing people based on religion in general.  Certainly, when you start lumping people into broad categories of "Christians", "Jews", "Buddhists", etc, there are some ethical questions that arise.  On the other hand, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of human knowledge - I have once heard it called the modern Library of Alexandria.  So, I would say that the categorizations are a "necessary evil"... lumping people in groups based on their race or religion is never really a great thing to do - it can be generalizing, perhaps even de-humanizing.  However, I think we should just present the facts, and hope that the reader makes good, responsible ideas and decisions from them.  And please remember, we are all striving towards a common goal:  To create the best respository of knowledge the world has ever seen, so I think it would be best if we concentrated at the matter at hand, and avoid making statements or insinuations on one another.  --Shadowlink1014 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see the article on Andrea Mitchell.  I do not find any source cited in the article that documents that she is Jewish, yet the article says that she is a "Jewish American journalist" and includes a category as such as well as the category "Jewish American writers."  Does anyone dispute this article's use of that information in line one and in its categories listed, as per WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures? If so, then the article needs editing accordingly. If not, then why can the same kinds of information about "Jewish American lawyer" or "is Jewish" (in this case documented by reliable sources), not be left in this article on Libby?  I see no consistency in these two articles in Wikipedia.  This Wikipedia article on Andrea Mitchell shows up in a search for "Lewis Libby" in Google because the Wikipedia article also discusses her conn. to Libby and the Libby trial vis-a-vis the CIA leak investigation. --NYScholar 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know about that article, I've cleaned it up. Next time please clean it up yourself once you notice unsourced claims, per WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: If one has any real interest in the subject of this article (Lewis Libby), one would read the whole article and examine and read the sources cited in its notes and references.  According to most discussions of Libby, in whom interest grew after his indictment by Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation in the Plame affair, Libby was one of the most important and key influences on development of the Bush administrations' (both Bushes') foreign and defense policy relating to the Middle East and Israel, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq (a current subject relating to this article on him).  Thus, he is more important than a "major politician"; he was a key political policy maker.  Read the article and the sources cited.  Kampeas' discussion relates to his role as a policy maker in the current Bush administration and the resulting political "scandal" euphemistically termed the Plame affair in Wikipedia (due to continual contentiousness about it).  Not only is Libby notable due to the recent convictions; he is notable for his role in the Bush administration leading to them.  [He is also a public figure, and exceptions to general WP:BLP apply to him, according to WP:BLP#Public figures.] --NYScholar 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby's notability