Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 5

message: Before the article was protected, someone added "Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and many other politicians have called on Bush to announce that he will definitely not pardon Libby." before the note citation for the previous sentence but did not provide a source citation for the additional sentence.  That is extremely misleading.  The sentence needs a "full [source] citation" that can be verified by other Wikipedia users. See the template at top and Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as WP:BLP, calling for "full citations" for information added to "controversial articles": Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  [I know that the sentence['s reference to Reid's being against the pardon] is accurate; but it still needs a full citation.  Also, the note that it comes before is meant to follow the previous sentence.  The new sentence needs to be added after the already-existing note citation (reference), followed by a new source citation documenting that new sentence.]  --NYScholar 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the italics that the original contributor added to the word "not" need to be deleted; the italics make it appear to push the POV and they are not necessary for understanding the sentence; a direct quotation from a cited source would be helpful.  The reference to "many other politicians" (who?) is vague and unsupported in the article as well, as there is no documentation of this sentence.  This appears to be a clear case of adding POV to the article that needs revision as well as a source citation. --NYScholar 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given WP:Attribution, when the article is unprotected, unless and until a verifiable and reliable source is provided in proper full citation format, in the proper location (with the current note restored to after the sentence it originally followed), the added sentence quoted above should be entirely deleted. --NYScholar 08:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [....]I have deleted a sentence that is unsourced, because it is placed between a sourced sentence and the source citaiton for the sourced sentence.  Whoever added the intervening sentence needs to re-consider its wording (delete the italics to avoid appearance of POV editing) and also to add a source properly ("full citation" according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  See my previous comments in this section.  Thank you. (The sentence that I deleted is not disputed; its problem is the placement of the sentence between the preceding sentence and the actual source for that sentence and its lack of its own source citation.  See above for earlier explanation of problem.)  --NYScholar 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a possibility, following the properly-sourced previous sentence with new trans.:
 Calls for Libby to be pardoned by President George W. Bush appeared in some newspapers; some of them are posted online by the Libby Legal Defense Trust.Libby Legal Defense Trust: In the News; the Libby Legal Defense Trust also features a "Message from the Chairman", former Ambassador Mel Sembler, and the Advisory Committee, 6 March, 2007, accessed 7 March, 2007.  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a press release about the verdict, urging President Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby, and other Democratic politicians followed suit.Harry Reid,press release, democrats.senate.gov 6 March, 2007, accessed 5 April, 2007; cf. news account in "Democrats to Bush: Don't Pardon Libby", CNN News, 7 March, 2007, accessed 5 April, 2007.
[see Editing mode for the full citations; they would show up w/ all the previous citations if I add a "Notes" section directly below; to avoid repeating earlier notes too, I'm not adding a "Notes" section below.] --NYScholar 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statement

message: The article on Libby as it stands too closely conforms to partisan reporting in the media.  Wiki should follow NPV.  The specific issue is that the article suggests that Libby was accused or took part in a crime of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity", and that the crime was not prosecuted because Libby withheld information.  Clearly, this is not true.  Prosecutor Fitzgerald clearly knew the identity of the person who did disclose Valerie Plamm's identity and Fitzgerald, prior to the multiple instances in which Libby was questioned under threat of perjury.  Secondly, while Valerie Plamm did work at the CIA, she was not a covert agent of the sort whose identity was protected by law, nor was the fact that she worked at the CIA a secret.
Clearly, Libby was accused of crimes because his recollections changed during the course of the process and a jury concluded that constituted a crime.  Clearly, the conviction is fact and newsworthy.  However, at the same time the underlying facts related to Fitzgerald's investigation are just as newsworthy.  I'm not suggesting that "Fitzgerald's investigation and prosecution appears to be politically motivated" needs to in the article.  I am saying that Fitzgerald's knowledge of the identity of the "leaker" prior to his pursuit of Libby is a relevant fact that needs to be disclosed, and that the "leaking" of Valerie's Plamm's name was not, and would not have been a crime. Can an administrator "editprotected" these two points or get a discussion going?
--Knowsetfree 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disabled the editprotected tag.  Since this page was protected due to a content dispute, it would be inappropriate for me to make significant changes until the page is unprotected. Everyone who is interested is encouraged to discuss the issue here. CMummert · talk 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi CMummert, looks like you are right about the editprotected tag.  I misread the wiki policy, the
underlying article is editprotected already, and I just want the issue discussed.  Thanks. Knowsetfree 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction Warranted regarding alleged crime

message: Please post comments here. Notmyrealname 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:RFC]]

message: Without rehashing the endless discussion on categories, I hope we can at least all agree to adhere to the most explicit parts of WP:BLP regarding categories. For instance: "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." As it currently reads, there is no case made for the use of the Jewish American Lawyer category. Notmyrealname 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first comment in this subsection of comments relating to the RFC needs to make the status of the disputed content very clear so that new users of this article are not misled by the comment.  As this section of discussion pertains directly to the previous section asking for comments, I have made that relationship clear in the relationship of the headings.  Please see the previous sections already discussing this matter both in the current talk page and the archives for earlier discussions and the responses in the Lewis Libby sections in the BLP noticeboard and its linked archives.  This section is very misleading otherwise.  For information about what "RFC" is, please go to the linked page: Wikipedia:RFC; I added the link in the section heading referring to it.  Please see also the section of WP:BLP entitled WP:BLP#Public figures for related guidance; see also Temple Rodef Shalom and Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom as well as above discussions on this talk page and in its archives.  Thank you.  (I will not be able to respond further to comments about this matter as I will be away for an indefinite period of time of anywhere from several weeks to months.)  --NYScholar 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think this qualifies as a Catch 22. There are several separate issues that need to be resolved in a particular order. One is about the inclusion of a discussion about the Kampeas article and its main subject, the purported "debate" about his religious identity. Another involves listing his particular house of worship. If these are resolved in favor of your position, then a case can be made to include the various categories, not before. The categories do not need to be included in order to resolve these disputes in favor of your position. THAT would be a catch 22. I was just trying to say that we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Notmyrealname 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please use caution on inserting categories

message: General response to the above section: Clearly, by making these continual deletions and reversions, Jayjg (a "Wikipedia administrator") and a couple of other users are "imposing [their] POV", as pointed out above repeatedly above.  In doing so, they willfully ignore objections to their changes by others on this talkpage based on WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:AGF.  As a result of their own biases (POV), they continually delete sources that have been consulted and annotated properly for this Wikipedia article, and that do satisfy Wikipedia:Citing sources.  They are not following basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  See this current talk page, archived talk pages, disputed editing content notices in the archives of the WP:BLPN.  This dispute has not been resolved yet by truly neutral administrators.  Those making the deletions are "interested parties" to this dispute (demonstrating conflicts of interest).  They should not touting administrative authority to revert changes to this article to match their own POV.  See Wikipedia:Administrators and WP:ANOT (with incorporated links) to understand that; administrators are all still just like any other Wikipedia user: they must still abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other Wikipedia policies, including all those that I just linked and have linked before.  They just ignore such guidelines and policies.  The claim that a reliable source (Kampeas) is "junk" (see recent editing summaries and earlier ones with POV pejorative value judgments) clearly are judgments reflecting their own biases and POV (not that of published reliable sources).  There is no support for such POV judgments in any published reliable source: see WP:NOR.  Many other published reliable sources reprint the article by Ron Kampeas.  The information provided in it is repeated in the Tulsa Jewish Review cited in the NNDB biography, which, otherwise has some questionable details about Libby, but which I have annotated specifically and properly purposefully to make its possible unreliability clear.  (Such annotations are recommended in Wikipedia, when giving external links to sources.)  Because NNDB articles are frequently cited in references and external links presented in Wikipedia articles (as this NNDB article was for a long time, without any qualifications), the annotation is an important qualification of such a source.  By continually deleting information and sources that many other Wikipedia readers do find relevant and useful, these users are obstructing (not following) Wikipedia policies and guidelines, making up their own rules to suit their POV and then referring, misleadingly, to WP:BLP. WP:BLP includes WP:BLP#Public figures, which pertains to a public figure like Lewis Libby; that statement of policy relates to WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, all also linked via talkpage headings above.  It requires following WP:Cite/Wikipedia:Attribution/WP:Reliable sources, which have been followed via the annotations and the heading "Works consulted".  The deleted sources and the relevant subheading need restoring.  --NYScholar 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continual POV deletions and reversions of content

message: I had an exceptionally informative external link bumped for the usual "explanations" and was wondering if it could be re-inserted in the following form:
Presidential Pardon Research Data archive sponsored by the popular Jurist "Presidential Pardons Page (University of Pittsburgh), as cited in The Hill. "White House: Since Late 20th Century Presidents Not as Forgiving as Predecessors" (3/9/07) and Congressional Quarterly. "Presidential Pardons Chart" Vol. 59, No.8 (2/24/01).
If I need to pile on more secondary sources, please let me know.
best,PSRuckman 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that belong here or on the Libby Plamegate page? Notmyrealname 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I suppose that would an enitrely different set of concerns. I guess I would like to tackle everything, but one thing at a time. Is there anything at all wrong with the form of the citation you see above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSRuckman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate Citation 

message: *"Jewish Republican Heads Libby Defense Fund". Jewish Standard (Teaneck, New Jersey) 22 February 2006, World News. Accessed 6 March 2007.   
*Kampeas, Ron. "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con's Faith Impacts Leak Scandal". Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) ("The Global News Service of the Jewish People") 2 November 2005. Accessed 17 March 2007. Rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 6 November 2005. Updated 7 November 2005. Accessed 26 March 2007. Cf. "Lewis Libby," Notable Names Database, as listed below.   
*Lewis Libby at nndb.com. Accessed 5 April 2007. [Some details about Libby listed here may be of questionable reliability. N.B.: Note 1: "See Tulsa Jewish Review, Volume 76, Number 10 [Dec. 2005]," repeats information from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article by Kampeas, as listed above.]</blockquote></blockquote>
====Notes====
--NYScholar 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sources consulted

message: --NYScholar 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I have never seen a "sources consulted" section on a biography page. Is it part of a standard template? It seems that this would be a poor way to insert contentious material. I hope we can also agree on another point. the NNDB is not a WP:RS. Inserting an unreliable source, even with a caveat is not acceptable according to WP:RS. Another point: can we stop listing reprints of a wire story? This is unnecessary and does not show relevance. Showing relevance would be to show other original stories that cite the wire story, not that reprint it in full or in part. Also, hiring a Jewish lawyer does not show "involvement with the Jewish community," nor does meeting with Jewish leaders, in a meeting with several other non-Jewish policymakers, signify anything. Should we just start listing whether policymakers are either Jewish or not Jewish if they deal with Israel? Finally, please refrain from name calling (e.g. "POV editors"). It is really not helpful. Notmyrealname 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never seen a section like that because it doesn't exist in any other article; it's just NYScholar's WP:POINT way of trying to claim Libby is a Jew. The rest of your points are extremely well taken. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. But do keep in mind that we all need to be civil to move this thing forward. Notmyrealname 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please build consensus before entering contentious edits