Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 2

message: I've removed some inflamitory comments in this article, "libby is an american criminal and a dirty republican etc".  While I may personaly aggree with these comments this is not the place to express them.  If whomever keeps adding these bits keeps doing so I recommend someone request the page be protected as it is a current event and possibly a target for further vandleism. --Spazzz 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: Per the Manual of Style, I have incorporated the "trivia" into the article, but these two items don't really seem worthy of inclusion:
*Libby's former office in the Old Executive Office Building was the office of Theodore Roosevelt when Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
*Apparently, Libby injured his foot during the final days of the grand jury investigation; he was using crutches publicly as of October 26th, 2005.
Anyone who feels they should stay in, please state reasons here. Jokestress 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I tried to streamline the info about his first initial, but there are other sources of varying quality I will add here:
*http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chomun.uchicago.edu/committees/NSC_back.pdf
Jokestress 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given name 

message: As per e-mail from Sandra Libby's representative, she is not related to Lewis Libby in any way whatsoever, nor has she ever met him, and neither has her husband. The last name is just a coincidence. DS 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandra Libby

message: There are some edits here about the media credentials given to bloggers that strike me as suspicious. Robert Cox is given way too much credit for acquiring press credentials for blogging in the referenced NYT article, and it's at least possible that he's behind edits here to also magnify his role. The people at Firedoglake claim that he has had a minor role in their own credentials, at best. They express their annoyance with Robert Cox in these two posts:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/02/on_bringing_me_.html
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/15/about-those-jury-instructions/
I'd like the main article to acknowledge the groundbreaking work done by Jane Hamsher and the rest of the Firedoglake crew in reporting on the trial, and to give Robert Cox the attention that he deserves, which I believe is none. I'm hoping the reverts were simply an honest mistake. If not, we might be in for a little edit war.
Update: Thanks User:NYScholar for cleaning up my changes. I agree that the article reads much more encyclopedically now. A mini-barnstar for you!  -- Raph Levien 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogger credentials at trial 

message: Such deletions violate Wikipedia's editing guidelines.  Isarig initiates and engages in such violations in other articles that I have contributed to; he is engaging in editing wars and multiple reversions of others' work.  He needs to desist.  See the source citations in the article.  I provided the source for information originally added by other editor(s) without such a source.  Currently, the source is note 3.  It appears to me that Isarig is now trying to make further trouble by going to other articles that I have edited and not behaving "in good faith": he is not reading talk page discussions or prior editing history or even the sources currently cited in the article, which support notability and verifiability and reliability of material in it.  He is not explaining his edits in talk page discussions; he is just deleting sourced, pertinent, notable, and verifiable information disregarding consensus on talk pages.  --NYScholar 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions of pertinent information by users

message: Warning to Isarig: see above and editing history. --NYScholar 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR]]

message: The relevance of this section strikes me as very dubious. It reads mostly like an advertisement for the various blogs it mentions. I recommend it be deleted entirely.Notmyrealname 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete media coverage section?

message: The sources cited explain its notability.  Please read the quotations from them and consult the notes.  Blog coverage of the Libby trial is described in the major national media as a historical event in American media coverage of trials. These bloggers have U.S. federal court-accredited press credentials; their coverage of the trial in their blogs (which are also featured in the Associated Press (see the citation) are news accounts and thus reliable sources of the events that they are reporting on (they have been part of the court media pool). --NYScholar 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please sign your posts using four tildes. The source seems rather self referential. I think it merits a mention, but most of the information here is superfluous. I think this section could be cut down substantially.Notmyrealname 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I do sign my posts using four tildes.  My preferences in Wikipedia govern how it shows up; it shows up the way I want it to show up.  There is no reason to cut the section, as it conveys important information and in doing so cites notable and reliable and verifiable sources.  It follows Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  I suggest that you actually read the sources for their information rather than to make such unwarranted snap judgments.  Also, take a look at the "preferences" link above your own page when you log in; apparently, you don't understand how they function in Wikipedia.  Use of 4 tildes simply puts in the user name according to one's prefences and adds the UTC time and date stamp. And, while you're at it, please consult other Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and W:Reliable sources, and WP:Cite.  (signing with the four tildes right after my two hyphens/dash). --NYScholar 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tilde clarification. I've never seen it used that way before. It makes it more cumbersome for others to see a users other edits. But, to each their own. I just removed the bulk of this section from this page. The same exact information is included on the United States v. Libby page. That is the appropriate place for this. This page is a biographical page for Libby, and the bulk of the information here should be directly relevant to his life and actions.Notmyrealname 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Until the confusing notes/references format in the main article United States v. Libby is fixed (which may take editors some time), I had put this section in this article (because it has only one notes section).  I would have preferred it to be in the US v. Libby article.  But until that article is fixed (see editorial interpolations in editing mode there), this section is also in this article.  If one examines both articles (which are now-cross-linked still), one can see the problem with the other article's notes.  Since I am not familiar with the References citation format that an earlier editor had developed there (which is very messed up because there are also many numbered external links not incorporated as full citations there), I chose to create this section in this article and, originally, put a cross-reference there.  Now I've put the same section in both articles until the problematic Notes/References situation is corrected in the US v. Libby article.  Please be patient.  Perhaps other editors who can fix the Notes/References format in US v. Libby article can solve the problem.  It should have one prevailing format in which all the citations that are serving as notes show up as full citations.  These are controversial articles and full citations are required by Wikipedia policy.  --NYScholar 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete press media section

message: Please stop removing sourced information and already-verified notable and reliable sources.  "NotMyRealName" and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide.  I don't appreciate that.  Deleting information of this kind also violates Wikipedia editing policies; you need to read them more thoroughly and carefully before you wily-nily delete information provided by other editors who have preceded you.  Show some respect for our work.  And read talk pages of controversial articles and the policies regarding such articles (scroll up to top of page and read the linked material there).  --NYScholar 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete information that is sourced with notable reliable sources, already verified, as provided by other editors

message: I think it is fair to say that reasonable people are disagreeing. Perhaps we should get some outside input through a request for comments? BTW, this is the only article that NYScholar has edited that I have made edits on. If you don't like people editing your work, then perhaps you should not be contributing on Wikipedia. I have made careful arguments about the reasons for my edits. I believe that they conform to Wikipedia editing policies. I don't think Libby's religious affiliation is germane to this page. Others agree with me. Some others agree with you. Things get hashed out. Such is life in Wikilandia. Cheers!Notmyrealname 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of his parents religion

message: According to WP:BLP, categories, such as Jewish American Lawyers, should only be included if "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." Relevance has not been demonstrated. He is no more a "Jewish Lawyer" than he is a "Right Handed Lawyer" (assuming he is right handed). This is not an appropriate category label for Libby. Further, the absence of similar categories for lawyers of other faiths should give us pause as to the value of the category altogether. Notmyrealname 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These criteria have been met: in the article by Kampeas cited in my various versions of this Wik. article on Lewis Libby, Kampeas points out both Libby's membership in a reform Jewish temple (a clear act of "self-identification") and to his involvement with the Republican Jewish Coalition, as well as a variety of contexts of controversies relating to the subject of his Jewishness pertinent to other sections of this article: his political work in the Bush administration, the trial United States v. Libby, and so on (already explained in my later contexts and in the current version of this article.  I also respond throughout this talk page clearly to other faulty statements made about what I have been documenting in this article in other users' comments.  I don't know what the problem is that this users have with acknowledging that Libby is Jewish and that he himself in a variety of ways that are documented has acknowledged that publicly: but whatever they are, they do not have basis in Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies as I read them.  These users' attempts to delete such properly-sourced information from this article appear entirely wrong-headed to me. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is so that one can see what Kampeas is referring to, because the source with the problematic sources is what he discusses; there is no Wikipedia guideline that prohibits providing identifying a possibly-unreliable source discussed by a reliable source; it is the context of his point--and I quoted directly to establish Kampeas' criticism of the JVL source. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts from Wikipedia guidelines and policies

message: The Virtual Jewish Library has been cited by editors here as a source for Libby's ethnicity and religion. A quick visit to the site shows that the entry on Libby cites Wikipedia as its sole source.  Under the section Jews in the Bush Administration, it lists as its sources "News Reports" and the Republican Jewish Coalition. However, the only reference to Libby in their website does not have any mention of Libby's faith or ethnicity. Notmyrealname 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Virtual Jewish Library not reliable source

message: [addressed to NYScholar; moved here from that personal talk page. --NYScholar 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you reverted to the last version you had edited on February 27.  Since then, five different editors have made ten edits to the article.  Some are major edits (and likely the ones to which you object) while some are minor (such as my correction of one reference and an anonymous editor's correction of a quote).  Again, I ask that you be careful when editing and not discard good-faith edits in an attempt to undo another editor's edits.  I realize it's a pain if you have to undo old edits and that's it easier to simply revert but it's a disservice to those editors who have made non-controversial good-faith edits in the intervening time period.  --ElKevbo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, as I replied earlier, I am sorry and didn't intend to lose good-faith edits; some aren't even distinguishable in the "editing history" as I read it.  If something important needs to be restored (like a typo. corr. to a reference, or an entire notable reliable source), please advise.  If you provide the information with links to source here, I'll try to put it into this article's prevailing citation format, if you don't want to do that. Thanks.  I'm rather tired now, and it will be hard for me to sort out tiny details in punctuation; but give me a link to the edit that you produced, and I will try to get it back in eventually.  Thanks. --NYScholar 06:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby reversion

message: [It violates Wikipedia talk page guidelines to single out other editors and place their user names in headings: read the policies.  That violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Removed my user name from the heading. --NYScholar 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Notmyrealname 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why I added the information and the citation; your own and others' previous edits and reverts had removed the source; I restored the source and explained that in my editing history explanations.  Why don't you read them more carefully and follow the editing history and the problems in citations that your deletions create.  When I need to correct a typographical error, I do so and call it "tc" for typographical correction(s).  --NYScholar 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a good possibility that the New York Times is basing its statement on pre-existing internet information; the NYT article provides no source for its assertions; these news articles tend to repeat one another and even at times to take information from Wikipedia articles, which are unreliable themselves--my point.  I clearly present the problems with JVL in the citations (by citing Kampeas' point about it, because the JVL entries are being cited all over the internet (including in newspaper articles, without identification of the lack of clear sourcing); that's the point. I find your resistance to such facts "bizarre".  It is a fact that there is debate of Libby's "Jewishness" or lack of "Jewishness" and WP:POV allows Wikipedia articles to document such debate.  You clearly don't understand the relationship between WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:POV.  --NYScholar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a rather incredible assertion. Can you back up this claim? Why is there a good possibility of this? The New York Times employs a lot of fact checkers. They tend to get into a lot of trouble when they mess up. You need to provide some evidence for suggesting that they just got it from "pre-existing internet information." The article is also the source for his nickname. One might presume that they actually interviewed the guy or his father. Please don't nitpick over typos. You've made quite a few yourself. Notmyrealname 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One can point out the problem in sources for the benefit of readers who might be misled by them; that is what I have been trying to do and what you constantly have been deleting. --NYScholar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. In the past day NYScholar has called me stubborn, totally wrong-headed, and has repeatedly made baseless accusations that I have been stalking her/him and using sockpuppets and IP addresses. I have made reasonable edits. Justified them. Engaged others in the discussion. Several other editors have agreed with my arguements. Notmyrealname 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your edits are neither reasonable nor within Wikipedia guidelines.  Read the policies.  No one has agreed with facts in your arguments.  They have agreed with false presentations of facts in your arguments.  I make that clear throughout.  Read the comments and updates to them.  I have not said that you are "stalking" me--that is your own projection; no one has any way to know how many different names or IP addresses anyone is using in these talk pages except himself or herself.  I myself know that I have contributed to this Wikipedia article using only one user name and no anon. IP addresses.  What others have done and/or are doing in editing, I do not know.  Once again, I refer you to WP:NPA; Wik. policy is to focus on the content not on the contributors.  --NYScholar 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I based the above claim on the following statement by NYScholar: "'NotMyRealName' and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide," as well as the comments noted in the previous section. I disagree with your characterization of my edits and representations. I would be happy to submit this to arbitration. Would probably be good for both of us to leave the editing of this page to others for a few days. Notmyrealname 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: [moved from wrong sec. by NYS] Go ahead: submit this article to arbitration.  I welcome that. [ran into editing problem early and it posted in wrong sec. when I copied/pasted it.]  [updated] NYScholar 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand by my comments objecting to the removal of references and other editing matters on this talk page. --NYScholar 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to various claims

message: N.B.: I made this request of the user posting this heading prior to his posting it.  I have refused to "agree" to his attempts at further harrassment.  I have stated that I refuse any further interaction with him prior to his posting this.  His comments following my added note here are not, in my own view, an honest presentation of this situation.  Clearly, prior to his posting this heading, I had already asked him to stop posting repeated personal attacks on my talk page.  Those attacks began on my talk page after I had originally followed Wikipedia procedure by courteously asking him on his talk page (where one is supposed to do that) to desist in personal attacks on me in this article's talk page, when he continued to make personal comments, as he does below (instead of focusing on the content of the article).  I do not use a link in my signature, and I remove his putting in links to my name in the comments below.  Doing so violates my chosen preferences in Wikipedia.   Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  --NYScholar 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make any personal attacks on the user above. Instead, I have been the victim of such attacks, as noted below. I have also courteously requested that this user refrain from making such attacks. I tried to engage in mediation, as the user had previously indicated a willingness to participate. However, the user has refused. I leave it up to the careful reader to evaluate the situation. I continue to welcome mediation, arbitration, or other intervention by Wikipedia administrators. Notmyrealname 15:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's best to ignore most of what that editor puts on Talk: pages, as it is always extremely lengthy, and rarely about article content. I've removed all the speculation about Libby's "Jewishness"; it's all based on one source, it's irrelevant to Libby himself, it was extremely poorly written (it ended up being a lengthy paragraph about which sources had used the JTA article and a bunch of original research about how the other versions of the original JTA article differed), and it all violates WP:BLP. And by the way, alleged membership in a Reform Temple is not "self-identification" as Jewish. Self-identification as Jewish is a statement from Libby in a reliable source stating "I am Jewish". Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What did I tell you? Point proved, look at the section below. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for user to stop harrassing me

message: N.B.Please do not respond to any of these points and interrupt their presentation.  If you respond, do so after my signature. If you respond, respond only to points relating to the content of this article and not to contributors.  See the talkpage header with its link to WP:NPA and the header "Controversial" for further guidance in editing this article.]
#Jayjg is involved in editing disputes in Daniel Pipes; see Talk:Daniel Pipes; he/she is not a neutral observer; his/her unwarranted evaluative remarks about another Wikipedia contributor (me) is not a statement of fact; it also violates WP:NPA's policy that Wikipedia users (including administrators) are to comment on content not the contributors: "It's best to ignore most of what that editor puts on Talk: pages, as it is always extremely lengthy, and rarely about article content."  That is not the statement of fact; and it is not a statement made by a neutral and impartial observer.
#Knowing that I disagreed with the so-called "mediation" request that the other user posted, and that that process is set up to respect all users involved, and that the mediation has a seven-day expiration, nevertheless Jayjg has stepped into an editing dispute in this article that was listed (by the other user) in the BLP noticeboard, in which multiple other Wikipedia users commented.
#His interpretation of what "self-identification" of being anything (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Arab, Israeli, American, Italian, English, African, Dutch, German, etc.) is absurd: thousands if not hundreds of thousands of articles on living persons do not follow his interpretation of "self-identification"; there are multiple ways to identify oneself publicly as Jewish: in this case, of Lewis Libby, he has identified himself as being Jewish, he is listed in the category in Wikipedia entitled "Jewish American lawyers" on the basis of that self-identification; as (at that time) senior-level White House public official, he is not a private figure; he is a public figure.
#For related information, see internal Wikipedia link to Republican Jewish Coalition cited in the quotation included in the article by the verifiably-documented source Kampeas in its multiple reprintings, also cited.
#It was the other user who posted personal comments continually here in this talk page about a contributor (and kept doing so, even adding sections highlighting such personal contributor comments) even after being requested on his/her talk page to desist, which violates WP:NPA.
#In the above comment, Jayjg does not focus on the actual content of the article cited (by Kampeas).
#Kampeas' article is a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines; the way that I presented it is fully within the policies of WP:BLP.  There is nothing detrimental or potentially libelous in pointing out that there has been a debate in the public media about whether or not Lewis Libby (the subject of this article) is Jewish and that that debate centers on his being a public figure and involved in government political policy (which a large part of the article concerns) and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation leading to United States v. Libby, which much of the rest of this article concerns, as linked to Plame affair.  These are matters of content.
#Kampeas's JTA article reprinted in several other reliable publications is going to be accurately and appropriately listed in a new "Further reading" section of this article pertaining directly to the subject, which is Lewis Libby (not nmrn or jayjg or me or any other contributors to Wikipedia).
#Reminder:Focus on content not the contributors: WP:NPA.
#Administrators in Wikipedia are violating this standard Wikipedia guideline and taking sides in contentious editing disputes in controversial articles that invariably seem to concern matters relating to Jewish subjects.
#The report of Libby's membership in a Jewish temple by a reliable source [Kampeas publishing via the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)] evidences self-acknowledgment by Libby of his being Jewish.  Libby has not publicly denied that he is Jewish; his colleagues discuss the fact that he is Jewish and that he has identified himself as being Jewish to them and to others in the interviews quoted by Kampeas.
#Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), which reported this information and discusses its relevance to the controversies involving Lewis Libby arising in relation to his government public service, is a reliable and verifiable source; it meets the criteria for a reliable source in W:Reliable sources; referring to the article by Kampeas (JTA) violates no policy stated in WP:BLP; defining what Kampeas reports is completely in keeping with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.
#The content of this article is being distorted by those attempting to delete pertinent information cited from reliably and verifiable sources; the source by Kampeas is verifiable: one can click on the various links to the article and read it to check its existence as a source.
#The presentation (deleted by jayjg) adheres to policies and guidelines presented in WP:NOR and the other policies and guidelines linked in the tagged notices at the top of this talk page and throughout my previous comments about the content of this article and the content of this talk page of this article.
#I have posted this response out of concern that readers of this article on Lewis Libby are being deliberately misled by the other users deleting presentation of the information reported in the article by Kampeas.  Deleting such information violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV; it violates standard Wikipedia editing guidelines.  Suppressing such information is not "encyclopedic" according to Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies.
#See the talkpage header with its link to WP:NPA and the header "Controversial" for further guidance in editing this article.
[Please do not respond to any of these points and interrupt their presentation.  If you respond, do so after my signature. If responding, please respond only to points relating to the content of this article and not to contributors.]
--NYScholar 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation about Libby based on one article alleging membership in a Reform Temple, and contradictory statements about his "Jewishness" from various individuals, is not nearly good enough to make the information encyclopedic and pertinent, constitute "self-identification", or conform to WP:BLP. In addition, most of the section was original research about various versions of the JTA story as it was edited re-printed by various newspapers, not about Libby. Please re-read my comment in the section above, please respond directly to the points already raised, please do not fill the Talk: page with 1000 word 16 point diatribes, and please don't ask me to repeat this a third time. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A request for calm for all, and while I'm here a minor note of my own opinion- some reform temples let people who do not self-identify as Jewish and have no Jewish ancestry be members of the temple (often if they are married to a temple member). So in general, being a member doesn't necessitate self-identification. In fact, it might be quite hard. The example that occured to me when I was actually trying to justify going in the other direction (arguing why membership did constitute sufficient self-identification) was the following- if we had a source or even the person saying that he takes communion at the local Roman Catholic church you might think this was enough. But! Russian and Greek Orthodox are allowed to take communion from Catholics and Catholics will give it to them. So even being involved deeply in a religion's rituals are not necessarily enough to conclude that someone is a member. JoshuaZ 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to the removal of pertinent reliably-sourced information and its verified and verifiable reference citations from the content of this article

message: <N.B.I place this content here so that people will read it in full (as linked in "Further reading" in this article on Lewis Libby), instead of being dissuaded to read it for themselves by misrepresentations of this article characterized by earlier posters here.  Again: please do not interrupt this comment before the end of it; if you respond, please do so after my signature.>
This is just some of the relevant content from Kampeas' article "Libby Jewish?" (documented in "Further reading" sec.; dated 2 Nov. 2005) that justifies its consideration by readers of this article.  The first page of the article provides context for the second page (it is a two-page article online in some versions; one page in the JTA version).  [Note: The link to this article via JTA's own search facility is called: "Libby, Judaism and the leak probe".]
The article begins with a quotation from Muravchik expressing his own embarrassment for his originally falsely assuming that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. was not Jewish: When Joshua Muravchik, perhaps the pre-eminent expert on the interventionist foreign policy that has become known as neo-conservatism, was looking for non-Jewish neo-cons to prove that the movement isn’t pervasively Jewish, he naturally included Lewis Libby:
"Non-Jews figuring prominently in current foreign-policy debates and today called neo-cons include Libby, (John) Bolton, American Enterprise Institute president Christopher DeMuth, and Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American Century," Muravchik wrote in Commentary magazine two years ago [2003].
"Go easy on me," Muravchik laughingly told a reporter this week, after it emerged that the man at the center of the White House leak scandal indeed is Jewish.  (Italics added.)
Further context of the controversy relating to whether or not Libby is Jewish is as follows:
Yet the fact that many people in Washington — including neo-conservatives — had no idea that Libby was Jewish underscores how tenuous the Jewish-neo-con link actually is, said Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Jewish himself.
“One key measure of the falsity of the argument is that the non-Jewish neo-cons are equally pro-Israel as Jewish neo-cons,” he said.
In addition to DeMuth, Schmitt and Bolton — who now is U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — prominent non-Jewish neo-cons include Bolton’s predecessors Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former CIA chief James Woolsey and former Education Secretary William Bennett.
Conversely, polls have found that a majority of American Jews embrace liberal and centrist views. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year’s Democratic presidential candidate, won up to 77 percent of the Jewish vote.
Muravchik’s mistake was one a lot of people have made. Two other prominent Jewish neo-conservatives insisted to JTA last week that Libby was not Jewish.
Libby’s Jewish profile at the White House was low, according to Jews who have worked with the administration.  Other Jewish staffers knew he was Jewish, but he was not one of the highly identified Jews, such as Tevi Troy, the deputy assistant policy adviser to the president, or Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The low profile was attributable in part to Libby’s general reserve and to his closeness to power. After Karl Rove, Bush’s top adviser, he was considered the most powerful unelected official in the White House.
Not every Jew who works in the White House likes to wear his identity on his sleeve, said Jay Footlik, the Clinton White House’s liaison to the Jewish community.
"If they didn’t choose to self-identify as a member of the community, if they didn’t express a concern on a particular issue or ask to be a part of a meeting when a Jewish organization came into the White House, then we might have known they were Jewish, or we might not," Footlik said.
Some of the misapprehension apparently has to do with Libby’s persona. His Andover prep school education; his nickname, “Scooter”; and the Jr. tacked onto the end of his full name as it appears in the federal directory — I. Lewis Libby, Jr. — seem to indicate a non-Jewish background. [Italics and bold added throughout.]
Kampeas--a journalist reporting for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)--refers to as a "fact" what JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) reported (as posted in its participating newspapers and magazines such as Jewish Review online on 1 November, 2005 via its wire services).  In para. 3 quoted above, from the beginning of "Libby Jewish?", his phrase "after it emerged that the man at the center of the White House leak scandal indeed is Jewish" refers to the prior emergence of Libby's Jewishness as a fact ("indeed is").  In the article featured and published by JTA on its own website on 2 November, 2005 (and published in many other newspapers and magazines which receive their wire services feed from JTA), after the previous discussion already quoted, he writes (on page two, in some versions) further:
In fact, Libby, 55, for years has been a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va., a five-minute drive from his home in McLean, a wealthy suburb known for multimillion homes housing top lobbyists, lawyers and Bush administration officials.
Officials of the Reform movement and the synagogue were reluctant to discuss Libby's involvement. Acquaintances don't remember seeing him at shul, aside from High Holy Day services.
Libby's membership in the Temple guide lists his wife, Harriet Grant, a former staffer for congressional Democrats, and two school-age kids.
"His name never even came up when talking about Jews in the administration, not even as part of the so-called 'neo-con cabal,' " said one Reform official who asked not to be identified.
The Jewish Virtual Library, a Web site, listed Libby as Jewish, though its sourcing was unclear. [I discussed this in my earlier comments and made this problem clear in my citation of Kampeas' article, since deleted by Jayjg.]
Libby's only other ostensible Jewish involvement was with the Republican Jewish Coalition, and only since he joined the Bush administration. He made an appearance at the RJC's 20th anniversary celebration last month.
Libby is known as a workaholic but he has a busy private life which could have kept him from spending much time on extracurricular Jewish activities. He's an avid skier, plays touch football on weekends and has written and published an erotically charged novel set in Japan.
A number of Jewish leaders told JTA they didn't think Libby's Jewishness would become a factor in the leak scandal that has obsessed Washington, but his name already appeared on numerous anti-Semitic Web sites long before JTA published an item over the weekend reporting his synagogue membership.
Muravchik said it's an old ploy to ascribe ulterior motives to neo-conservatives having to do with the Jewish origins of some movement leaders.
"It's certainly a slur that has been repeated by people who are enemies of neo-conservatives or who are enemies of Jews," he said.
The underlying argument is that the movement led the Bush administration into war with Iraq in hopes of protecting Israel. That argument ignores the low Jewish profile of many other Jewish neo-cons.
It also ignores the essentially American origins of a movement that seeks to spread democracy overseas.
The sympathy for Israel is simple, Muravchik said.
"It's a lone democracy in the Middle East, and it was a chief target of the Soviet bloc," opposition to which helped shape neo-conservatism. "It was also the chief inspiration of dissent in the Soviet bloc at the time when there was very little in the 1970s."
Referring to a 1996 paper by three prominent Jewish neo-conservatives that pressed Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister at the time, to engage against Iraq, Muravchik wrote in Commentary that it would "make more sense to say that, in preparing a paper for Netanyahu, they were trying to influence Israeli policy on behalf of American interests than the other way around. Indeed, most Israeli officials at that time viewed Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, as a more pressing threat to their country than Iraq, and (then as later) would have preferred that it be given priority in any campaign against terrorism."
In an interview this week, Muravchik noted an emerging split between American neo-cons and members of Israel's ruling Likud Party over the movement's enthusiastic backing for President Bush's Middle East policies, particularly his support for Palestinian statehood.
"I've had numerous private and public exchanges on this topic with Likudniks and non-Likudniks who say, 'You Americans are nuts, you don't know these Arabs. We know them; the idea that they can resolve differences peacefully is hopelessly farfetched,' " Muravchik said. "I've been in rooms where Americans were talking about democracy for the Arabs, and Israelis were ridiculing it." (Italics added.)
[Note added later: Some reprinted versions of this article are shortened, edited versions, and they omit the last two paragraphs. --NYScholar 10:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar, your latest comment was only 2,250 words; that's hardly enough to do the issue justice, don't you think? Could you possibly expand a little on your point, say get the comment up to 5,000 words? That way we'd all have a much better chance of fully understanding what you're trying to get at. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of Kampeas' article pertaining to the content of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby

message: Given my previous discussion of the content of the article by Kampeas, here again is the passage that Jayjg deleted totally from the article, erroneously citing WP:BLP and WP:NOR, neither of which pertains either to my citing of these sources or to a biography of a public figure (Lewis Libby):
In "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", published initially by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and the Jewish Review, and reprinted in The Jerusalem Post (with a somewhat different headline), the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, Washington Jewish Week, and other public media, Ron Kampeas reports that Libby is "a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va," close to his Mclean, Virginia, home. According to Kampeas, speculations, assumptions, statements, and misstatements about Libby's Jewish heritage, Jewish identity, and/or Jewish self-identification, or lack thereof, have been the subject of debate and controversy in the public media, in both the traditional press and the blogosphere, by both critics and supporters of the Bush administration's policies regarding the Iraq War and other controversial matters; most particularly, by those following the CIA leak grand jury investigation and Libby's subsequent trial in United States of America v. Libby, when interest in his personal history heightened."Jews in the Bush Administration", Virtual Jewish Library: A Division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). ("The Jewish Virtual Library is the most comprehensive online Jewish encyclopedia in the world, covering everything from anti-Semitism to Zionism.") Accessed February 17, 2007; cf. Kampeas.Ron Kampeas, "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", 2 November, 2005, published originally by Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), rpt. by Information Clearing House, accessed 2 March, 2007; cf. "Libby Jewish?", Jewish Review 1 November, 2005, accessed 2 March, 2007. Kampeas comments on the entry for Libby in the Jewish Virtual Library and its inclusion of Libby in this list of "Jews in the Bush Administration" (particularly noting the JVL's unclear provision of sources of documentation): "The Jewish Virtual Library, a Web site [encyclopedia], listed Libby as Jewish, though its sourcing ["news reports", "Republican Jewish Coalition", and/or "Wikipedia"] was unclear....Libby’s only other ostensible Jewish involvement was with the Republican Jewish Coalition, and only since he joined the Bush administration." The JTA source is accessible via free registration at "Libby Jewish?", Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 2 November, 2005, accessed 2 March, 2007. The ICH version is provided for those who do not want to register to access the JTA version of this article.Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post 6 November, 2005; cf. Kampeas, "Libby Jewish?"; both accessed 2 March, 2007. See also the article rpt. as Ron Kampeas, "Libby, Judaism and the Leak Probe", Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles 11 November, 2005, accessed 3 March, 2007; also rpt. as Ron Kampeas, "Yes, Libby's Jewish, But Is That a Factor in Leak Probe?", Washington Jewish Week, 11 November, 2005, accessed 6 March, 2007. (These articles by Kampeas have virtually the same content, even when they are featured with different headlines by the news organizations publishing and/or reprinting them and identifying them as originating from the JTA; some are shortened, edited versions.  For some others, see also, e.g., "Libby Jewish?" and "Lewis Libby", "Jewish", "Ron Kampeas" searches, accessed 3 March, 2007.)
====Notes====
I had provided the additional sources to verify my stating that the JTA article by Kampeas was widely cited in the public media (which nmrn incorrectly stated was false); I altered "mass media" to "public media"--but actually I was correct earlier--the mass media includes both traditional press sources public media and the blogosphere ("internet media") wherein the controversy exists. There is no so-called "original research" in that note; it presents its sources as full citations and 2 links to verify them as being included in a search for the topics of this controversy relating to Lewis Libby. (After I wrote that full citation re: JTA, I realized that one can view the full article as a guest even without the free registration; in fact, each time I tried to register on the site, the registration process did not work; instead the article is viewable if one chooses to view it without registering, when given the choice.)  I have no objection to deleting the links to the searches, but, once again, they do not qualify as "original research"; they are links to citations for those who need to verify that the reprinting of Kampeas' article is "widespread" in the public media, as a version of that paragraph that I wrote earlier says.  WP:AGF (Some of the notes showing up are keyed to earlier comments in this talk page.) [I added the Washington Jewish Week full citation to the earlier paragraph later for people's information, so they don't have to look for it in the additional 2 links given as verification; and I noticed later too that some of them are shortened, edited versions, so I added that.] (updated) --NYScholar 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The content removed from this article that pertains to my previous comments

message: I had provided the additional sources to verify my stating that the JTA article by Kampeas was widely cited in the public media (which nmrn incorrectly stated was false); I altered "mass media" to "public media"--but actually I was correct earlier--the mass media includes both traditional press sources public media and the blogosphere ("internet media") wherein the controversy exists. There is no so-called "original research" in that note; it presents its sources as full citations and 2 links to verify them as being included in a search for the topics of this controversy relating to Lewis Libby. (After I wrote that full citation re: JTA, I realized that one can view the full article as a guest even without the free registration; in fact, each time I tried to register on the site, the registration process did not work; instead the article is viewable if one chooses to view it without registering, when given the choice.)  I have no objection to deleting the links to the searches, but, once again, they do not qualify as "original research"; they are links to citations for those who need to verify that the reprinting of Kampeas' article is "widespread" in the public media, as a version of that paragraph that I wrote earlier says.  WP:AGF (Some of the notes showing up are keyed to earlier comments in this talk page.) [I added the Washington Jewish Week full citation to the earlier paragraph later for people's information, so they don't have to look for it in the additional 2 links given as verification; and I noticed later too that some of them are shortened, edited versions, so I added that.] (updated) --NYScholar 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: i guess there is a god after all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.83.66 (talk • contribs) 
: That's great, but incredibly unencyclopedic.  I'm leaving it as mildly historic, but noting that as of when I replied (1 hour after the reading of the verdict, it is unattributed).  There have been several defacings of this article and it should probably be protected, though I will make no move in that direction for some time longer. Trelane 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  convicted 

message: In response to Trelane's comment I believe a motion should be carried for temporary protection. --RWilliamKing 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already requested. Jokestress 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--NYScholar 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to article in response to recent events 

message: I notice that one newcomer or some newcomers to this article are re-inserting "Jewish" in the introduction and/or body of this article and that someone re-added the category "American Jewish lawyers."  They are not using the required "full citations"--required by Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  These users are apparently not consulting the talk page of this article prior making such substantive changes and discussing such changes prior to doing that (which violates Wikipedia editing guidelines for "controversial articles" and WP:BLP).  They are not recognizing that consensus already exists not to insert the word "Jewish" in the introduction and that it is problematic (due to talk page controversy) at this stage even to add it to the background section.
Please see earlier comments about this contentious matter.
At this point, I would propose simply making a statement of fact at the end of the "personal history" subsection like: "Libby is Jewish." and to follow that sentence immediately with citations (references full citation format) to both Ron Kampeas's November 2, 2004 JTA article(s) and the March 6, 2007 JTA article added today.  These citations are already present in the main body of the article and its "Bibliography" (also see them quoted above).  Please discuss this proposal.  (Please keep in mind that it is not I who is re-adding "Jewish" into the article or adding the category "American Jewish lawyers" at this time.  There are also possibly other pertinent lists categories in Wikipedia.  Some of them are those that other Wikipedia users may be adding his name to after this conviction.) --NYScholar 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility is simply to state factually: Libby is "a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va.." followed by the "full citation" to Kampeas and the NNDB biography, which also states that and gives a source (which I haven't found). --NYScholar 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me, but who knows anymore. --Tom 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution: Problems with newcomers editing this article on March 6, 2007

message: Shouldn't this page be unprotected now that it is on the Wikipedia Front Page?
:It's not a Featured Article on the Main Page, it's part of an ITN item. -Fsotrain09 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I vote for taking the "convicted criminal" phrase out of the lead sentence, instead mentioning the conviction in the lead paragraph. --Christopherlin 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Convicted criminal" in lead 

message: Should we mention the civil suit against Lewis Libby? Obviously it's convered in detail in other articles but I wonder if we should include a one liner mentioning it Nil Einne 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added it earlier. --NYScholar 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil suit 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see anything that explains the presence of the name "Liebowitz" in the opening line.  Was it his birth name? - in which case there should be some reference to "born as..."  and later on in the article a note about his name change.  If it is an ancestral name that he was not born with - then surely that would go with family background - not the opening.  This may have been discussed/debated before - but it is unexplained at present.  Davidpatrick 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a specious unsourced statement. Remove it on sight if it doesn't have a source. Jokestress 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liebowitz

message: someone added a box last night that includes "charges" etc.; that kind of material is not strictly speaking "biographical details" and seem inconsistent w/ the box format used for other BLP.  I took the information listings out; they appeared to be gloating and thus not NPOV.  It's clear enough from the first paragraph and the rest of the article what the charges of the case are etc.  Unless someone can find models of boxes used in BLP in very similar subjects, and can discuss the rationale for adding such details that are not strictly speaking parallel to the other biographical details (birth date, death date, spouse, children, parents [if one actually can verify exact names of them, which in this case is problematic it seems]), then the information should be deleted (as it is now), I think.  --NYScholar 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The box