Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Resolving disputes [continued]

[....]

Point of information:The matter of citing Kampeas' article documenting Libby's being Jewish is first raised by other users (some unsigned/undated, some signed/dated) in archive 1 of this talk page (circa Oct. 2005): Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 1#Religion. Please check the subsequent archived pages for further discussion by various Wikipedia users of this fact and their and my documented evidence of reliable sources--WP:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution--citing that fact and the relevance of those sources' documentation and discussion of the fact to this public figure's biography and to publicly-debated issues by reliable sources pertaining to aspects of his public service as a government official relating to such important other Wikipedia subjects as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and its resulting United States v. Libby. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The following second paragraph is factually incorrect and citations need to be updated. "Libby is the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years[8] and "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair" in 1990.[9]" In fact many sitting White house officials have been indicted in the last 130 years - Source - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-26-white-house_x.htm

I concur, Henry Cisneros was secretary of Housing and Urban Development [1]. Cabinet members are higher up in the White House than any chief of staff. CNN is wrong.A.S. Williams 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional biographical sources pertaining to Lewis Libby

• Bromell, Nick. "Scooter Libby and Me". The American Scholar (Phi Beta Kappa) (Winter 2007). Accessed 25 Apr. 2007. Online reposting. Alternet 16 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

Nick Bromell, Professor of English and Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, is an "old friend of Scooter Libby's" from boarding school, "deeply opposed to the Bush administration, which [he] regards as dishonest and dangerous," who "believes that Scooter and his neoconservative colleagues have not only set the nation on a disasterous course, they have also destroyed my father's lifelong effort to make U.S. policy in the Middle East more responsive to the realities on the ground": "I went away to boarding schools in the early 1960s, and at one of these [Eaglebrook] my best friend was a boy named Scooter -- Lewis 'Scooter' Libby -- who grew up to become Paul Wolfowitz's protégé, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and one of the Bush administration's strongest advocates for the war in Iraq...."

• –––. "Scooter's Tragic Innocence: Why My Friend Scooter Libby Is Loyal to Bush, Cheney and an Arrogant Administration Whose Values Are Not His Own". Salon 24 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007. (Premium content; restricted access.) Online reposting. Democratic Underground Discussion Forum 24 Jan. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

Another profile by Nick Bromell, "someone who's an old friend of Scooter Libby's and at the same time a frustrated critic of the Bush administration," who has "known Scooter since we were both 11-year-old 'new boys' at a boarding school [Eaglebrook] in New England....Later we were roommates, co-captains of the debating team, and later still we both went to Andover. We had the same teachers, read the same books, and played hundreds of hours of touch football together. We were close friends, drawn to each other not just by shared interests but by a shared position on the cruel status ladder of these elite prep schools. In a world dominated by rich WASP jocks, we were both too small to play varsity sports. Scooter was a Jew. I was a scholarship boy whose family never owned a car. ... [added passage found in open-access version later.] As Scooter's friend, I was always puzzled by how he managed to reconcile his exceptional intelligence with an unquestioning allegiance to these schools' absurd values and hypocritical institutions. Perhaps as a Jewish boy, Scooter simply felt more pressure than I did to submit to the system in which we were placed." [updated. --NYScholar 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

[The above passage relates to the dispute in arbitration pertaining to Lewis Libby's ethnic and/or religious public self-identification as a Jewish person. Clearly, from the age of eleven years on, according to Bromell (his "best friend" at the time), he had identified himself publicly as being Jewish. [It is highly unlikely that his family was not "Jewish" if he himself was at age eleven.] I add the passage only because it pertains to various disputes about categories pertaining to public self-identification of religious belief that editors from time to time have been adding and deleting from this article about a public figure whose later high-level U.S. government political policy-making position involved meetings with officials of the Israeli government at the highest level. The passage is simply offered as more reliably and verifiably-sourced evidence of that public self-identification. Nowhere in his two articles does Bromell say that Libby did not identify himself publicly as being Jewish. (Though, as a public figure, "use of categories" does not pertain in the same way as it would if Libby were a "private figure," not a high-profile public official convicted of federal felonies, losing his law licenses as a result of that conviction, and being sentenced to federal prison and fined substantially.) (Bromell offers his own points of view on the biographical fact of Libby's being Jewish and, like himself but for different reasons, being a kind of social outcast in the "WASP" (Bromell's word) environment of prep school.) From Brommel's point of view (as a source) these are just biographical facts about Libby's life that later might (or might not) be relevant to understanding his role in "neoconservative" U.S.-Israeli policy-making, Middle East political affairs, his strong role in advocating the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and later strong support that he has and is still receiving from members of the Jewish community both in the U.S. and abroad, including Israel. All of this mitigates against the argument that Libby has not publicly identified himself as being Jewish (having a belief in Judaism and/or being an ethnic Jewish person). The BLP category issue pertains only to the matter of "belief" not to the matter of ethnicity: WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:BLP#Use of categories. Whether or not the fact of Libby's being Jewish (his so-called "Jewishness" according to Kampeas and Kampeas' evidence of his Temple membership, as cited earlier) and the controversy raised about it as reported by Kampeas is relevant enough to mention in the article is still subject to discussion and debate and disputed by some editors. I simply offer the information in the passage quoted as further evidence to consider. At this point, I myself [given the arbitration matter] don't know what to do with it and would not take a chance of adding it to the article; but here the information is as quoted above and present in full in the source by Bromell cited. (Though I have listed it as "premium content" restricted to subscribers only, today I was able to access the article fully without being a subscriber by just clicking on the link. --NYScholar 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

These are recently-published, detailed profiles by an authoritative reliable source (published originally in reliable and verifiable sources) who had been a close friend of Lewis "Scooter" Libby; they may provide additional biographical information and insights about Scooter Libby; despite their differences in political points of view, Bromell and Libby were friends at least until the writing of these essays: In the earlier one, Bromell writes:

"In my hotter moments—I have fewer and fewer cool moments these days—I ask Scooter whether his political identification with homophobia is distinguishable from a political identification with racism or anti-Semitism. And convinced that it is not, I sit down at my desk to do it: to write the letter telling Scooter that I can no longer be his friend, not even in the rather distant way we have been friends for all these years.

Today, my old friend is under indictment for obstructing justice by lying about his knowledge of the Valerie Plame affair. Unless his lawyers manage to engineer a miracle, he will be tried in court early in 2007. There he will face the distinct possibility of public disgrace and a career-terminating jail sentence. So what should I hope for, I ask myself: my old friend’s acquittal or his conviction?"

Bromell ends the essay saying that he hopes for his friend's acquittal for personal reasons and his conviction for political ones, it seems. He seems still in a quandary, torn between his own political views and his personal feelings for Scooter his boyhood friend of old and longstanding adult friend, able to "see both ways at once" (11). --NYScholar 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Nick Bromell", KFNX AM 1100 (Phoenix, Arizona), accessible in MP3 format, relates to the article in The American Scholar and was broadcast on 26 Jan. 2007.

It is interesting, I think, to listen to, as Bromell elaborates some of his points in the article published in TAS. Re: Libby's full given name: Asked by Charles Goyette what the "I." in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby stands for, first Bromell says "Irv[e]" and then "Irving," so that is still in limbo; given his answer, it would seem that "Irve" or "Irv" is the nickname for the fuller given name "Irving," however; when asked if Libby's last name was always "Libby," Bromell says that that is the only last name that he knew him by (since they were 11 years old). As Bromell is an English professor as well as an old friend of Libby's, they also discuss Libby's novel The Apprentice, with some biographical focus. --NYScholar 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Like many other sites, the antiwar.com notice of the interview also links to the profile of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby at Right Web: Exposing the architecture of power that's changing our world:

• "Profile: I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby". Right Web, International Relations Center (IRC). Last updated 21 Mar. 2007. Accessed 25 Apr. 2007.

This detailed "Profile" could be added to "Related external links" in the main article: I list it for consideration, along with the previous sources on this current talk page and already listed in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6. --NYScholar 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

quote request

article says Patrick Fitzgerald "noted also that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby."[emph mine] is sourced to 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for March 6. i was unable to find a quote in the article clearly substantiating this statement. Doldrums 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fitzgerald's cited statement also pertains to the previous source given in the notes in the sentence right before that: MSNBC article in relation to his original news conference about Libby's indictment (Oct. 28, 2005): WaPO transcript of Fitzgerald news conference (currently n. 29 [& others] in Valerie Plame): see section of article cited at end of previous sentence:

No more charges:“The results are actually sad,” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. “It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did.”

Fitzgerald said the CIA leak investigation was now inactive. “I do not expect to file any additional charges,” he said. “We’re all going back to our day jobs.”

[Note well: The citation to the source is not to merely one transcript as the above comment says; it's to "video clips," which are several on the MSNBC Hardball webpage linked in the citation note. See Editing history to note. There are various video clips on the site, including video footage from Fitzgerald's comments to the media.]

The key point is that because of Libby's obstruction of justice and the lies, Fitzgerald has said, as documented in his news conference re: the indictment of Libby (in 2005), that there was a "cloud" (see next sentence; Chris Mathews' source) over the investigation, and it was not possible for investigators and the grand jury thus to identify who else [Fitzgerald] might needed to have "charged" ("additional charges"); that was Fitzgerald's original claim about the effects of the obstruction of justice in his grand jury testimony and lies in Libby's interviews with the FBI, which led to his convictions in United States v. Libby: that the investigation was "impeded" by [because of] Libby's obstruction of it [cf. active voice used by Media Matters as cited below: Libby's obstruction impeded the investigation]:

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.
You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.
And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Please see the citations to Fitzgerald's post-conviction comments to the media (in various articles cited) [here's another source for the video of the remarks--WMV at crooks and liars which could be an additional source given] and click also on the video link to the Chris Mathews program: Hardball video: "The Cloud Over Dick Cheney"; there are other links provided in the webpage for the Hardball (printed) source citation, where that link is also listed. [An article by Neil Lewis quoting Fitzgerald's comments to the press was published by the New York Times on March 7, 2007: "THE LIBBY VERDICT; Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case" (requires log in; possibly TimesSelect subscr.; I've read and verified this article via mine). A possible additional sentence to quote from this NYT article by Lewis is: "In remarks to reporters outside the courthouse, Mr. Fitzgerald also addressed at length the criticism of his decision to prosecute Mr. Libby on charges of lying to investigators while not charging anybody with leaking Ms. Wilson's name to reporters." See the WMV (or QuickTime) video for those remarks.]

[Perhaps after (a) subsequent editor(s) deleted that sentence, when (a) later editor(s) restored the sentence, s/he or they placed it after the note number instead of before it and perhaps it now needs an additional source. Originally, it had verified sources (deleted along with it earlier), and its original source substantiates the statement]. It also refers to his original news conference [about] the "cloud" over the CIA leak grand jury investigation cast by Libby's obstruction of justice [a key part of his closing arguments], [which] is what he said initially (using his baseball metaphor): see the longer discussion and the sources in the cross-linked articles in "See also"; espec. the Plame affair--recently renamed CIA leak scandal (2003)--(cross-linked articles there--e.g., Valerie Plame), and United States v. Libby). When the protection is lifted, perhaps editors will try to correct any typographical errors remaining in this article and restore any additional missing sources. Thanks for your observation. [I and others reading these comments duly note it and will rectify it when possible.] (I may look for the exact source later, if it got deleted by accident or somehow confused throughout earlier edits.) --NYScholar 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like OR to me. we need more than two bits of information, viz. Libby obstructed, no charges filed against anyone else, to make a statement that charges were not filed because of what Libby did. the Fitzgerald statement above too doesn't help much, it appears to be a general comment about why obstruction charges shld be taken seriously rather than saying specifically that what Libby did made filing charges impossible. i haven't looked at the videos and maybe some sources have been mistakenly deleted, but i don't think the quoted text substantiates what the article says. Doldrums 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

United States v. Libby relies on the same March 6 Hardball episode as source. Doldrums 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the sources cited [... and] documented. You need to "look at the videos" of the cited sources before you make unfounded claims based on them. [...]The [cited] sources document Fitzgerald's statements to the media both after the verdict and in his press conference relating to the original indictments against Libby, 4 of which he was judged guilty & convicted. The convictions mean that he [Libby] obstructed justice through false statements (lies) and perjury before the grand jury and in his testimony to the FBI. Fitzgerald makes it crystal clear that due to Libby's false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, he impeded the grand jury investigation about the CIA leak. [Those are the crimes (which all pertain to the grand jury investigation, including the FBI interviews that were part of it) for which [the jury convicted] Libby in United States v. Libby.] --NYScholar 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [clarified in brackets; added link. --NYScholar 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

If there is a mistake in someone's exact wording of a sentence citing the sources, it can be corrected later, after the protection of this article is lifted. Citing reliable sources and documenting them is not "original research." That is an unfounded charge. Just examine the editing history and read the citations in the notes more carefully. If the sentence that you question needs to be somewhat reworded, it can be reworded later. Fitzgerald clearly states that Libby "obstructed justice" and "impeded" the investigation of the grand jury. There is no "original research"; it is direct quotation from Fitzgerald's own statements. That is what "obstruction of justice" means (as F. says). It means that the lying impeded the investigation making it impossible to know who did what, when, and why (as the indictment states and as Fitzgerald states in his press conference about it [and in his closing arguments, also a context to which the post-verdict comments to the media relate]. --NYScholar 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[I have provided some typographical corrections and updated in brackets for greater clarity. Sorry if my previous explanation was less clear than I intended. See my most recent reply re: active voice v. passive voice and the importance of the contexts of Fitzgerald's Feb. 20, 2007 closing arguments at trial and earlier post-indictment press conference of Oct. 28, 2005 for understanding the content of his comments to the media after the verdict. All these sources pertain to understanding what he [Fitzgerald] was referring to in referring to Libby's obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements during the grand jury investigation, the crimes [for which (in United States v. Libby), the United States (represented by the prosecutor Fitzgerald) tried and convicted Libby....] --NYScholar 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [and further clarified in brackets, I hope. Sorry for any previous unintended lack of clarity in these sentences. --NYScholar 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

For further documented reliable sources, see also all the coverage in the articles listed in "Related external links": the sources are listed so that one can consult them for the news of the day: there are also video clips linked in a variety of them and other news sites, such as PBS (The News Hour with Jim Lehrer): e.g., news clips of juror Denis Collins and of Patrick Fitzgerald's and others' comments to the media are provided throughout the news sites: e.g, Denis Collins: March 6. Reading documented reliable news sources and clicking on links provided in them is not "original research"; the sources are documented: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution, etc. Scroll through them. As I've already said, I'm sure that if there are some actual mistakes in language of a sentence or in placement of a note, it can be fixed. WP:AGF. --NYScholar 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Among the live-blogging accredited court press blog accounts is one filed in Firedoglake by Christy Hardin Smith on March 6th, describing Fitzgerald's remarks to the media after the verdict; the video clips of those remarks are in the MSNBC, CNN, and other media video clips: "Fitzgerald post trial press conference". The more-detailed links to reliable verifiable documented sources are also in United States v. Libby (See this article's See also sec.). --NYScholar 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another useful reliable verifiable source re: Fitzgerald's comments to the media and other issues after the Libby (mostly) guilty verdict is Media Matters: "Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for", Media Matters 6 March 2007, accessed 26 April 2007. --NYScholar 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC):

[links embedded in source] No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

--NYScholar 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sentence may need a time-related verb tense correction with an additional repetition of the second note following the sentence that precedes it in the main text and also an additional note to Fitzgerald's remarks in his Oct. 28, 2005 news conference; I think that the original intention of this sentence was to refer back to Fitzgerald's earlier remarks (played in various video clips) for context for his March 6, 2007 media comments:

current sentence in article:

He noted also that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby.

[possible corrected sentence] E.g.:

He noted also earlier (in his news conference announcing the indictment of Libby on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments in United States v. Libby) that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of Libby's obstruction of justice.

... --NYScholar 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [[tc; added links. --NYScholar 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)] [refactored Notes sec. below ---NYScholar 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)]

I just checked United States v. Libby again: the above suggested sentence is consistent with the sentence in United States v. Libby that:

Speaking to the media after the verdict, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby."(followed by the same citation to the video clips presented on MSNBC's Hardball).

If one wants to add these additional other three sources listed above, one can do so for further clarification of sources. The intended meaning of that sentence seems clear and clearly documented to me. --NYScholar 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For a related reliable verifiable source citing Fitzgerald's comments about how Libby's obstruction of justice (including the perjury before the grand jury and false statements to the FBI) in the CIA leak grand jury investigation prevented him from knowing the facts and thus prevented him from possibly bringing other charges in the leak investigation: see: Dan Froomkin, "The Cloud Over Cheney", The Washington Post 21 February 2007, accessed 26 April 2007; this documents Fitzgerald's closing arguments in the trial that are among the legal contexts for Fitzgerald's post-verdict comments to the media (and those are also already documented in the cross-linked article United States v. Libby). Anyone following the trial and reading the reliable verifiable sources already cited and documenting both Lewis Libby and United States v. Libby would recognize that these are the arguments of the prosecution (Fitzgerald) that his post-verdict comments refer to. Various sources documenting the court transcripts, orders, and arguments pre- and post-indictment and in the trial itself are clearly linked in the notes and references for both articles. --NYScholar 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[updated:] Another video clip source posted via Hardball is the one re: those "closing arguments": Hardball video clip posted at MSNBC; transcript of the remarks by Michael Isikoff are also accessible via the MSNBC Hardball link pertaining to what Dan Froomkin quotes in the WaPo print source; they both quote Fitzgerald's remarks about "the cloud over Cheney" in those closing arguments. The argument is that if Libby hadn't lied and been "protecting the Vice President of the United States" that other people (such as the VP) may have been "charged" by the CIA leak grand jury investigation; that is explicitly Fitzgerald's point of view to which he was referring in his comments to the media after Libby's guilty verdict. --NYScholar 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

do these 10,000 bytes above mean that you can post a direct quote from one or more of the sources saying no else "was charged because of Libby's obstruction"? if yes, then the point can be more easily made by simply posting that quote here. Doldrums 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What you've done in your own paraphrase is to change the previous active voice of the verb (Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, on behalf of the grand jury=agent of the active voice), which is clear, to passive voice, making it unclear (ambiguous) who was and would be doing the "charg[ing]": see the previously-quoted sentence from Media Matters above (not that there's anything inaccurate about what's already in this Libby article or in the US v. Libby article). If one needs a direct quotation, one can incorporate it in the already-existing sentence preceded by a colon, followed by proper notes: e.g., "Libby's obstructions prevented him [Fitzgerald] -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law" and possibly bringing additional charges. The sentence in United States v. Libby (and in this article) still seems fine to me and supported by the sources. Please read them and look at the video clips linked as sources. The current sentences in these articles say the same thing in other words. (E.g., "had been unable to formulate" [active voice; notice past perfect verb tense]="was prevented from formulating" [passive voice].) Fitzgerald is speaking about himself (on behalf of the grand jury); there is no reason to lose the focus on him (or it) as agents of the action in these sentences. Thanks. -- NYScholar 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through some of my own earlier comments in this section and tried to clarify my own uses of passive voice which could lead to any confusions and to illustrate how the active voice is clearer than the passive voice in that the active voice identifies the agents of actions, whereas the passive voice obscures them, "clouding" such matters of who is doing and saying what to whom, etc. (I think that later editors can fairly easily correct whatever problems may remain with the sentence that Doldrums questions in this section fairly easily by providing Fitzgerald's direct quotations from the media clips on March 6, 2007 and by providing quotations of sources like Media Matters placing them in context of his closing arguments at trial and his earlier press conference about indicting Libby, which led to the trial. I prefer the version of the sentence in United States v. Libby, followed by the several notes that I've already suggested above. --NYScholar 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

E.g., with slight changes: "Speaking to the media after the verdict, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims (in the news conference on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments on 20 Feb. 2007) that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of Libby's obstruction of justice." [see editorial interpolation in editing mode.] --NYScholar 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or--"Speaking to the media after the verdict in United States v. Libby, Fitzgerald reiterated his earlier claims (in the news conference about Libby's indictment on 28 Oct. 2005 and in his closing arguments at trial on 20 Feb. 2007) that Libby's obstruction of justice had prevented him from formulating any additional charges in the CIA leak grand jury investigation."[followed by the note(s).] That sentence seems accurate to me, based on the sources that I cite above, including the news media video clips posted on MSNBC (e.g., in the webpages of Hardball; CNN; and the discussion by Media Matters. --NYScholar 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

as the following suggested sources do not bear out the statement in the article that Fitzgerald said he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else [...] because of the obstruction of justice by Libby. i've tagged it with a citation needed tag.

• 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for March 6 transcript
• Jurors convict Libby on four of five charges
• Fitzgerald's Press Conference October 28, 2005

lots of other sources have also been suggested in the long discussion above, but i expect to see one or two to be identified and quotes excerpted, if the statement is to remain in the article. Doldrums 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Can you please stop dumping material that you think should be included in the article on the talk page because the article is locked? You're pushing down all debate into the archives; this talk page isn't for writing your own "Lewis Libby" article. You have made almost literally hundreds of edits per day on the same material over and over in the talk pages. The talk page is not a playground. It's almost spam-worthy. --RWilliamKing 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to your comments above, RWilliamKing (see "Quote Request" posted by other Doldrums). I was responding to the need for sources raised by the person who posted this section. Earlier I added sources for the use of others. Those are reasonable good-faith edits, which I explained that I was doing on my own talk page. I don't know what your interest in this article is, but you seem to appear sporadically to make complaints. The sources that I cited (not "dumped") are reasonable sources to consider pertaining to subjects of this article. There is no so-calling "dumping" going on my posts. WP:AGF. And I am not creating any "spam" in this talk page. The sources and explanations of them were simply in response to the most recent query by Doldrums and earlier questions by others (many others) about content in the main article. Re: your repeated complaints despite the clear need for archiving in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Again, please stop these unwarranted allegations. Anyone can consult the archived talk pages for previous discussions; that's what archiving is for. I object to the tone of your comments throughout. I spent a lot of my time providing sources for the benefit of those interested in the subject of this article (Lewis Libby); that may or may not be you. From your tone and your complaints, it is hard to tell why you are dropping into this talk page. The talk page is for making improvements to this article on Libby. That is what I have continually been trying to do. [I make typographical corrections to errors that I make in my comments, which I often do not see despite previewing before posting. That is why there are many edits. If I find a way to improve the information that I have provided, or my own explanations of it, I try to do that within brackets.] --NYScholar 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]

Regarding your reference to "because the article is locked"; Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles requires discussion of any substantial edits to the content of controversial articles prior to making them in the article. While the article is protected, I have been suggesting some additional sources that other people might want to consider in the talk page of this article prior to making any such substantive edits to the article. That is preferred talk page procedure. "Full citations" are also required in WP:BLP and in such controversial articles. I myself regard providing the information for documenting sources in "full citations" to be a service to other users. Instead of complaining, people (like Doldrums and RWilliamKing) really should occasionally thank someone for doing all this work. I really don't have time to do this work anymore, and, as users are so unappreciative, I have really run out of time (and patience) with them at this point. They really need to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette. I find their (and others') rude comments truly offensive. [If one doesn't want answers to questions, then one should not ask them.] --NYScholar 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between having a discussion and creating your own Lewis Libby article in Talk:Lewis Libby, which is what you're doing.--RWilliamKing 14:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Please stop making unfounded charges. I repeat; I was responding to others' questions, including your own. I am not and have not been "creating [my] own Lewis Libby article in Talk:Lewis Libby".

I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I was providing sources requested by others for consideration, and that is clearly and repeatedly what I was "doing." I suggest that you cool it. See your own question about archiving, which I answered. Scroll up. I did not see any kind of polite reply there, either. Please review Wikipedia:Etiquette.... [deleted repeated sentences.] This is not a discussion forum about the subject or for leveling charges against other contributors; this is a place for making comments about improving the article on Lewis Libby; that is what I've been trying to do. My edits in the editing history (which now go back to about 23 September 2006 (in talk page) [2] and (in article) 25 January 2007) [3] were attempts to improve the article [as have been my later edits]. --NYScholar 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [edited & updated. --NYScholar 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)]

When I have time, and/or when this current page gets too long [as per a message in editing mode], I may be moving all of the sources and supporting quotations that I suggested on this current talk page in reply to Doldrums query to a new talk page archive [in this article's talk page archive], after I or someone else creates it (doing so takes time), and I will be leaving a notice and link to the material here for anyone interested in finding them [the sources]. Scroll up to my reply with the link re: archiving of talk pages. --NYScholar 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [edited; updated --NYScholar 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)]

The sources that I provided in response to the above query in this section are at least temporarily archived now in my own talk page archive 5: [4]. --NYScholar 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If consensus on this current talk page is to delete the information that I provided here from it because it takes up too much space, then the information is still accessible at my own talk page link for those who are interested in consulting it. (See archive 6 with the other user's comment about not "tampering" with the contents of the Libby talk page (now in archives 1-6) while the arbitration request is still under consideration. I have not deleted all this information that I have provided from this current talk page but just copied it so that it can still be consulted. As I have explained here, in my arbitration request statement, and in my own talk page, I really do not have time for doing further work on this article. I have simply provided the information about sources for the benefit of others who do want to work further on improving it. --NYScholar 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down man, 'cause it looks like what you are doing here is trying to build a complex legal case even though you 'won' this dispute long ago (when adding the correct categories is at base a very simple matter)! You certainly have gone a bit overboard on the TP here as others have stated, though personally I do appreciate the enthusiasm and thoroughness on your part. Rest assured, the relevant/factual/valid categories WILL be added to this article, as to keep them out is nothing more than censorship. Also, please note that certain editors are now trying to pull the same BS over at the Paul Wolfowitz and Ben Bernanke articles, among others. Also, did you ever read my response here? --Wassermann 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention...Category:Jewish American lawyers is now up for deletion (it'll soon be 'merged' in to Category:American lawyers) -- however, this doesn't mean that Category:Jewish American politicians and/or Category:Jewish Americans can't still be accurately added to the article along with the basic biographical information that you have so voluminously spelled out for us here. --Wassermann 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you on your own talk page at User talk:Wassermann#Please see Request for Arbitration; please see also the comment left on my talk page by User talk:Nbauman User talk:NYScholar#What's with these Jewish links? and additional sources relating to Libby in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5. Thank you. ---NYScholar 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the incivility that I have encountered from some others (not Wassermann) regarding Lewis Libby (scroll up and see the talk page archives), and my disinclination to waste any more of my time with this matter, I will not be replying further on this talk page. These matters are currently in arbitration. I suggest that other "interested parties" also indicate their awareness of the formal arbitration request on the RFA [5] and contribute their requested "statements" about this long-standing editing content dispute (not me) there, following the recommended Wikipedia "procedure"; scroll up to #Resolving disputes for more information. --NYScholar 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated the link; I do not wish to devote any further time to this matter. --NYScholar 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

Spelling, grammar, typos, from a NPOV

This sentence is repeated twice in the introduction and one copy should be removed. "Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and, if that attempt fails, they will appeal Libby's conviction."Rob944s2 18:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

requesting unprotection

am requesting unprotection of this article. it was protected for "edit-warring" more than a month ago (April 19). Doldrums 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I advise that you not do that until the arbitration of the user in question is completed.--RWilliamKing 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First Name Irve

It is exceedingly annoying that anyone is saying that the name Irve is "up in the air." THAT IS HIS NAME. IRVE!!! His father was Irve and he is Irve, Jr. It is not a nickname!!! It is a name!! IRVE!!! That's how public records list his father!! That's how public records list him!! IRVE!!! That's his given name, from birth! Who cares if a childhood friend hems and haws about the name behind the "I." and then suggests "Irv[e]" and then "Irving"? He doesn't know! He doesn't have a clue! Because the name is "Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr." Go through the public records (AGAIN) and you will see (AGAIN) the guy's correct name!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxdfgzsegzsrr (talk • contribs)

That's great. Please provide the definitive links and the issue will be settled. Notmyrealname 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is listed in Lexis - Nexis in the public records, if you would like I can screenshot and email it to you grimwomyn 12:32, 5 July 2007

You can search peoplefinders.com for Lewis Libby in Virginia and the record comes up listing Irve as an alternate name, age 57.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.171.0.232 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The NPR Player audio clip is accessible: this is still my response to it, having heard it now several times:

In his NPR report, Pesca (observing that Libby's late father was "I. Lewis Libby, Sr." preceding Libby's "I. Lewis Libby, Jr.") cites the father's using the names "Irving" and "Irve" (in documents accessed via Lexis-Nexis), and he plays his telephone interview with a Yale University librarian who, in consulting someone else regarding a yearbook entry for Libby (third-hand), vouches to Pesca that Libby's name is therein listed as "Irve Lewis Libby, Jr." Despite Pesca's "there you have it" claim of conclusiveness (which to me in tone sounds rather ironic or "tongue in cheek"), this presentation of evidence for precisely which name the "I." in "I. Lewis Libby" stands for––whether it is "Irving" or "Irve" (as for his late father "I. Lewis Libby, Sr."); or "Irve" in the Yale yearbook entry via the telephone interview; or "Irv" (in various newspaper and magazine reports)––ultimately still seems ambiguous, speculative, based on verbal hearsay, and thus neither entirely reliable nor factually definitive (and thus not really "proof" for a statement of fact in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Therefore, it is still safest to list only the "I." in the name in line 1, in my view. Actually reliable and verifiable court documents in USA v. LIBBY refer to Libby's name in the case name: United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby" (no "Irve," no "Irving," no "Irv," and no "Jr.")

--NYScholar 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the photo from the yearbook featured in Shane's article--if one has access to TimesSelect--one can see what Libby looked like in those days: photo in article captioned "Mr. Libby in the Yale yearbook.". This NYTimes art. refers to "Irve" at a point in the text, but the NYTimes does not consistently do so. (Clearly, Lewis Libby (or "I. Lewis Libby, Jr.") has referred to himself using various names at various times in his life; yearbook information is provided by the person himself or herself; it is hard to know how accurate one is being in the way one lists oneself in a yearbook feature or photo. It is not compelling evidence of a name. See the whole index to Times articles on "Lewis Libby" in ext. links sec. for how the NYTimes presents Libby and his name over an extended period of time; it changes in various newspapers from 2002 to 2007. --NYScholar 02:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For NPR's own more formal reporting of Libby's name, see, e.g., Lewis Libby's Grand Jury testimony. -NYScholar 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Came back online after checking etiquette and usage re: "Jr." and "Sr." re: punctuation and usage after a person's father dies (bec. it was still bugging me--as to what is most correct for usage in line one and caption of infobox etc. in this article); Bartleby.com (Columbia Guide to Standard American English) says to use a comma before and after "Jr." and "Sr."; a social etiquette site hosted by allexperts.com says that one addresses (correspondence to) a male person (usually a male person) as Jr. even after death of father (Sr.); whereas the NY Times and Middlebury Coll. usage is no comma before the suffix, Wikipedia usage of such Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Senior and junior ("personal name suffixes") is to use a comma before and after the Jr. or Sr. suffix (in a sentence); so I've restored the comma and the "Jr." to Libby's name in line 1 (even though various court papers do not use it), following as per some earlier consensus the tendency of the NYT to at least have the "Jr." pretty consistently (Times Index of articles on him); NPR doesn't use the "Jr." in his name as cited most recently; but I've put it back in. After one more teeny typographical corr., I am finally going back offline.... --NYScholar 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Irv"

An early and (at least in this Wikipedia article thus far) overlooked source for "Irv" as Libby's given name (marked by initial "I."):

. LEWIS LIBBY just will not talk about it. And do not bother asking his friends or colleagues because he has not told them either. ... He will not say what his initial I stands for. And Mr. Libby, 50, a lawyer, who is chief of staff and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, will not divulge how he got the nickname by which he is universally known, Scooter. ... "Unfortunately, you're not cleared for that," said Mr. Libby, using Pentagon parlance with obvious relish as an excuse to keep mum about what he calls his two personal secrets. ... Perhaps it is not surprising that Mr. Cheney's top aide shares not only his boss's low-key demeanor and circumspection but also his penchant for keeping tight-lipped when it comes to some biographical details as well as matters of state and country. [rather ironic in retrospect] ... "He's Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney," said Mary Matalin, a counselor to the vice president.

(It takes a phone call to Mr. Libby's older brother, Hank, to learn that the I stands for Irv. His nickname derives from the day Mr. Libby's father watched him crawling in his crib and joked, He's a Scooter!)

• Eric Schmitt, ""Public Lives: Cheney Aide Will Eat Horse Guts Before He'll Spill Beans", The New York Times, 30 April, 2001, accessed 30 June, 2007. (TimesSelect subscription required.)

I suggest citing this specific article by Schmitt, quoting Libby's older brother, Hank, as source for "Irv." Followed by Pesca source. --NYScholar 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that with all the mandatory paperwork in this country, that nobody can find a birth certificate, car title, driver's license, land deed, marriage certificate, legal license - ANYTHING - with this guy's full name on it? And even the legal indictment didn't list it as an alias or former name? man, I wonder how long it would fly if one of us schmucks told the nice police officer our first name is a secret? 204.186.14.37 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but then again, they wouldn't tell us they were just kidding about the jail time either.204.186.14.37 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I had put in "Irv"; then people kept changing it; it's not certain whether the "I." stands for "Irving"; "Irv"; or "Irve" according to the sources cited in the article. Until it is certain and not disputed, one needs to leave it as "I." When it's reliably and verifiably referenced in terms of the actual name and the actual spelling of the name, and a reliable and verifiable source is cited in the article to document the name and its correct spelling, then it can be put in line one. Until then, it seems to me, "I." is still most correct in terms of what Wikipedia editors know and can document with certainty. --NYScholar 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Still in doubt: Here is the verbatim transcript of Pesca's NPR broadcast, listed as "Guarding the 'I' in I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby," anchor Alex Chadwick, Day to Day, National Public Radio broadcast on October 19, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. EST:

ALEX CHADWICK, host:

This is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick.

I. Lewis Libby is the top aide to Vice President Cheney. He may have broken the law by leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent. Mr. Libby's nickname is Scooter; everyone seems to call him that. The initial `I' stands in for his actual first name, which is, well, the subject of this report from NPR's Mike Pesca.

MIKE PESCA reporting:

When I. Lewis Libby was named deputy undersecretary for Defense, here's what Pentagon briefer Bob Hall said. Quote: "I. Lewis Libby--I being his first initial, not referring to myself here--I. Lewis Libby is the deputy undersecretary for Defense for policy.'

Libby's office will not tell reporters what the `I' stands for. He did not divulge the meaning of `I' when confirmed in the Defense Department in the early '90s or in the State Department in the '80s. He wrote a generally well-received novel only as Lewis Libby, and this is the masterstroke: He goes by Scooter.

Think about how this works. If you introduce yourself as C. Everett Koop, everyone will ask, `What's the C for?' You'll have to say, `It's Charles.' But if you say, `Hi, I'm C. Everett Koop, but all my friends call me Lightning,' everyone will say, `Lightning?'

So here we have I. Lewis Libby, the most powerful adviser to the second-most powerful man in the world and no one knows his actual name, until now. Libby was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and attended Yale there. I called the New Haven library and talked to a librarian named Brad Bullis. Bullis is a member of the National Guard who spent time fighting in Afghanistan, is not one to shrink from a challenge. Bullis called the librarian at Libby's alma mater.

Mr. BRAD BULLIS (Librarian): And she invited me to come over and take a look at some yearbooks, so I looked at the Yale Banner for 1972 and we found that his name is Irve--I-R-V-E--Lewis Libby Jr.

PESCA: Time magazine and the Web site Wikipedia had it as Irving; USA Today and The New York Times had it as Irv without the E. No one noted the Junior, although Libby's father's name was also Irving, spelled as I-R-V-E in two references found for him in the LexisNexis database. So there you have it. I. Lewis Libby may or may not have been Robert Novak's unnamed source, but I. Lewis Libby is unnamed no more. Mike Pesca, NPR News, New York.

The transcript is accessible via Lexis-Nexis; the "two references" to Libby's father's name are not therein documented to specific articles in that database. Note also that another telephone interview with Libby's elder brother, Hank, says that his name is "Irv" spelled without the "e." But telephone interviews are not reliable evidence of orthography (as they are verbal). There is no way of ascertaining that the interviewer asked Hank to spell the name. See the section on this in the article. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "I." probably does stand for "Irving," with his nickname (when he used it in past days in prep school and college) being "Irv" [or "Irve"--unclear still]; he may have shifted the spelling of his nickname for "Irving" in different periods of time. But the fact is that it is not clear what the "fact" is (yet) re: the first name and the spelling of it and/or the spelling of the nickname for it. "I." is what Libby uses. I think it is proper to list his name as in court records: "I. Lewis Libby" or "I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby" (the court records say that is also known as (alias) "Scooter Libby"--this is current information from court documents and supercedes (I think) earlier and subsequent news accounts in reliability and verifiability. --NYScholar 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that Pesca seems (at least now) incorrect in saying that "no one noted the Junior"; but sources that do so contradict other equally reliable and verifiable sources--e.g., NPR and NYT. --NYScholar 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

HE USED TO GIVE HIS NAME AS IRVE LEWIS LIBBY, JR, NOW HE JUST USES I. LEWIS LIBBY. WHAT IS THE (F[RIVOLOUS]) PROBLEM HERE?

Moved from "Quote request" above

[Please post new comments at the end of comments; see talk page guidelines. Thanks. --21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)] The "Calls for Pardon" part needs an addition: Alan Dershowitz (along with other legal scholars) filed a brief on behalf of Lewis Libby "Professors Back Libby on Appeal Group Includes Dershowitz, Bork". illusionvi 13:34, 15 June 2007 (PST)

I returned to move the comment to the end of this page (as it was posted after my recent revisions) and because the user apparently did not realize that I had already added a citation to the brief mentioned prior to his/her posting this comment (above much earlier comments in an earlier section); please re-read the section on Lewis Libby#Libby ordered to jail pending appeal; it's there [note 60]. A direct citation of the brief is a better source than the NY Sun's article given, although that could be added if needed. I don't think it is needed. The signatures of both Dershowitz and Bork are already in the brief. (Judge Walton has been quoted in later news reports (in television news programs reporting on his ordering Libby to jail within 10 days) as saying that he was not persuaded by the brief and did not think that it was presented well. I don't have time to hunt a printed source for that; but the fact that he rejected their arguments makes his position on their brief clear.) --NYScholar 21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[The pertinent note is currently numbered note 60 in the article; the brief was filed in relation to the order after the sentencing (sec=Lewis Libby#Libby ordered to jail pending appeal); the article already states that renewed calls for a presidential pardon occurred in during [and after] the sentencing phase; chronologically, mention of the brief is in the proper section; it does not belong in the "calls for pardon" section as much as in post-sentencing one, re: the jail order. [According to many news reports, the brief was filed in response to that particular order by Walton.] (Lots of the calls for leniency etc. also refer to pardon. That should be clear if one reads Libby's supporters' letters and the amici curiae brief already linked.) --NYScholar 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC); NYScholar 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)]

[Updated further: Although I questioned whether it is needed above, I have added the source mentioned by the user above (illusionvi), with expl. in editing history. --NYScholar 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)]

extensive quoting

this article is acquiring an increasing amount of text quoted varbatim from sources, mainly news articles. much of this text reports straightforward facts, for which quotations are not appropriate. Wikipedia:Non-free content says, "In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." Doldrums 08:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the extremely misleading presentation of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text above, I am commenting on the above problematic post: Please see the actual whole passage for Wikipedia's full policy and guidelines:

Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed.
In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Quoting partial points taken out of context is often misleading, as just illustrated. There is a difference also between overly-"extensive" quotation [from the same source, is what is being referred to, not from different sources] and "brief attributed quotations" of primary materials in secondary sources [or even "extensive" attributed quotations of primary materials presented in secondary materials]: e.g., a judge's comments are not copyrighted material as reported in a news account; a transcript of public documents (such as judicial decisions) is not any kind of breach of copyright. Please understand the policies better in relation to actual copyright law definitions of "fair use"; Wikipedia does not invent such laws and interpretations of "fair use" are highly controversial, particularly in Wikipedia. Links to copyright information are posted on my talk page. --NYScholar 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Properly- and accurately-punctuated (verbatim) quotations

Please do not delete properly- and accurately-punctuated (verbatim) quotations from the article. The quoted phrases come from the sources as cited; those sources document the quotations. These phrases do not orginate with Wikipedia users/editors and to leave off the quotation marks is a form of plagiarism from the sources. If statements are missing sources, on the other hand, please provide the sources to document them. Undocumented statements in biographies of living persons, including those who are public figures, are removed on sight, as are clear-cut instances of vandalism. (See WP:BLP links in the notices above and the various Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Usual_warnings Vandalism warnings in Wikipedia for more information. Thank you.) --NYScholar 00:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads: Libby was born to "a prosperous family" in New Haven, Connecticut; his father was "an investment banker." Removing the quote marks around these six words does not constitute plagiarism, especially as the source is cited at the end of the sentence. For readability, I would propose further removing "to a prosperous family," as it is implied by his father being an investment banker (an investment banker being poor, on the other hand, is notable). Notmyrealname 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse; see earlier discussions and earlier editing history summaries of this matter. The quotations are even discussed in the arbitration report by Bauder--

[Here's the passage:

prosperous family

25) On March 1, 2007 NYScholar changes the language "Jewish family" to 'Libby was born to a "prosperous family" in New Haven, Connecticut––his father was an "investment banker"––and "raised in Florida."' [6].

[adding the passage, which is hard to link to; it's from an arbitration workshop item; if there's a way to link to this sub-sub-section, I may come back to provide the link; in the meantime, I'm just quoting the passage because it relates directly to these exact quotations: --NYScholar 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)][Here's the link: Scroll to Item 25: Prosperous family. --NYScholar 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have seen no source to the "Jewish family" information. The U.S. News & World Report contains the quoted language. Proposed Fred Bauder 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[updated. --NYScholar 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

[Later, I found additional biographical articles that I cited in the main article (... added as sources now) for the other places where Libby was raised; not just "raised in Florida" anymore; he was raised in multiple locations (as listed now). --NYScholar 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC); (updated. --NYScholar 09:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC))]

Given the extreme contentiousness about these [Libby-personal-history-related] matters [currently still in arbitration], the quotation marks, which are indeed proper, belong in the statement. The phrases are quotations from the article cited. Quotation marks are used for quotations. The statement is more accurately punctuated with the quotation marks than without them. I do not see any need to discuss this any further. [Added: Point of fact: [Link to prev. editing history and time frame of it are documented in the link given by Bauder: [7]. Please follow the link already given. Quotations are documented evidence of the statement; I have no other source to cite but the one cited for that phrase. It's the source I have for the info. that Libby comes from "a prosperous family" and that his late father was "an investment banker"; those are not my words; they are the words of the cited source, which I used to document the quoted statements--properly.] --NYScholar 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [updated above in brackets. --NYScholar 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)][--NYScholar 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

[For quotation guidelines and policies in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations (and related sub-sections) and Wikipedia:Attribution. (Updated.)--NYScholar 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

[*Addendum to "Prosperous family" discussion above and debates about previously-deleted phrase "born to a Jewish family," the Temple membership issue, and so on: After spending a lot more time updating and making typographical corrections (tc) to sources in this article, I've been able to provide full access to the relevant passage in Bromell's article "Scooter's Tragic Innocence" which points out that Libby's public identity as a Jewish boy since age eleven (when they were "best friends" in prep school) is a relevant topic in his biography (Bromell makes some specific points about it--gives his own point of view on it; hence, relating to documenting various reliably and verifiably-published sources of POVs on a subject (WP:POV). Scroll up for the block quotation (just amended from the source I could access again); the links to Bromell's two articles are already in the main text of the article in references (notes) and bibliography. There are clearly more than one reliable and verifiable source for this information about Libby's public ethnic and/or religious self-identifcation as a Jewish person; people engaging in "evidence" building and "workshop" making could benefit from reading Bromell's articles and taking his discussion into consideration. One reliable verifiable source (Kampeas) reprinted by many Jewish community newspapers (and updated in his own version in the Jerusalem Post--several versions differ from one another in that they are edited versions based on Kampeas' JTA wire account--is in my view quite enough of a reliable verifiable source that Libby is Jewish and publicly identifies himself as such through his Temple membership, his participation in religious celebrations, and so on; but now there are clearly more than Kampeas, if one consults Bromell, who actually knew the boy Libby since they were both eleven years old, and went on to be friends with the man Libby for decades later. [In many of Kampeas' later mentions of Libby [in Kampeas' later articles], he uses the phrase "who is Jewish"--multiple subsequent sources by Kampeas, not the same article; all my references to any of them have been deleted by other editors from this article on Libby.]

(And, btw, even his former "best friend" Bromell hesitates about whether the "I." stands for "Irve" or "Irving," ending on "Irving" in his audio interview, also cited in my archived personal talk page if not cited above.) [updated.] --NYScholar 11:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[The section above is Talk:Lewis Libby#Additional biographical sources pertaining to Lewis Libby--NYScholar 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)] [clarified in brackets. Kampeas has written many articles in which he includes the phrase "who is Jewish" after Lewis Libby's name; these articles are published after the one initially cited and its reprints. Many other Jewish community newspapers have subsequently drawn upon and either reprinted or cited Kampeas' later JTA articles, publishing the same information about Libby and his (what Kampeas calls) "Jewishness" or identity as being Jewish; these are all reliable and verifiable sources; yet users have been deleting them too. (If the newspapers did not consider such information to be reliable and of continuing interest to their readership, their editors would not be continuing to publish it; yet they do.) --NYScholar 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)] [The talk page archive page (5), where I posted information about Bromell and other pertinent sources to this article on Lewis Libby (some since first posting "Additional biographical sources pertaining to Lewis Libby" sec. linked above) may be accessed via the following link, User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5; of particular interest may be additional sections there, inc. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5#Other related pertinent sources. --NYScholar 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]

From the previous link (of particular relevance to Lewis Libby#Government public service and political career):

*Geoffrey Wheatcroft. "A State Like No Other: Israel, Once Seen As a Refuge, Has Become One of the Few Places Where Jews Are Attacked Simply for Being Jews". ("Geoffrey Wheatcroft on the troubled history of a homeland.") The New Statesman. April 25, 2005. Accessed May 7, 2007. Revs. of Jacob's Gift: a journey into the heart of belonging, by Jonathan Freedland Hamish (Hamilton, 2005), 395pp, £16.99 ISBN 0241142431; The Question of Zion, by Jacqueline Rose (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 208pp, £12.95; The Return of Anti-Semitism, by Gabriel Schoenfeld (Politico's, 2005), 186pp, £14.99.

[The full review from which the following passage comes is worth reading for Wheatcroft's complete point of view:]

....neoconservatism is an episode, an important and interesting one, in the intellectual and political history of Jewish America, and it is impudent to call anyone who mentions this a bigot. Schoenfeld suggests that only racist crackpots ever query the commitment of senior Washington officials, but it was Jack Straw, himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants, who said of Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: "It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day...." Geoffrey Wheatcroft's book The Controversy of Zion won an American National Jewish Book Award. His latest book is The Strange Death of Tory England (Allen Lane, the Penguin Press).

[updated. --NYScholar 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]

I would suggest adding the following content--a reliably- and verifiably-sourced pertinent sentence--in the section Lewis Libby#Government public service and political career after the current sentence:

Libby was also actively involved in the Bush administration's efforts to negotiate the Israeli-Palestinian "road map" for peace; for example, he participated in a series of "meetings ... [with] Jewish leaders" in early December 2002 and "an unusual meeting" with two aides of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in mid-April 2003, culminating in the Red Sea Summit, held in Aqaba, Jordan, on June 4, 2004.

• [suggested passage, w/ source citation: see "Notes"]:

Former British Foreign Secretary (2001-2006), current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw, "himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants ... said of Lewis Libby, [then] Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: 'It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day.'"

[Update: I added the sentence and supporting source citation; it is significant, pertinent, and reliably- and verifiably-sourced. Going back offline; late here; end of work for me. --NYScholar 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)][updated after working offline and finding some more re: citation; made verifiable changes in text and note. --NYScholar 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]

[ ... Notes sec. at end. --NYScholar 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)]

[For the clearcut inconsistency ["double standard"] of the statement below, see the editor's own editing history summary [8], which removes (just as pertinent) a transition identifying a source (which just happens to be Ron Kampeas): I already have added the requested [in the editor's own earlier view unnecessary) transition (to Walsh) in the article. --NYScholar 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)] Updated: --after spending hours and hours on updating sources in this article, once again I have to turn back to my own non-Wikipedia work deadlines. So I'm back off line. --NYScholar 12:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

[Updated: To other editors: Please do not edit others' comments; doing so violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I have restored my original comment to where I placed it originally. It is not appropriate to change the words and add other words to another user's/editor's comments.Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments Please do not do it anymore. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)][--updated in brackets. --NYScholar 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]

[Adding still further clarification (though I don't see why it is even necessary, but I do so out of courtesy): The matter discussed above (use of quotation marks, transitions, the removal and addition of them) is precisely a matter of "content". Please read comments more carefully and access links provided. Referring to an editing history summary made about "content" (transitions, verbatim quotations, coherence [so-called "flow"]) is not referring to the contributor; it's referring to the summary about the content (content). Please read or re-read the summary comment cited and linked. It reveals an "inconsistency" (about adding and deleting content) that I perceive as a "double standard" in editing practice: a content issue (pertaining to specific uses of sources--again, "content"). I perceive the discrepancy between this editing summary about deleting the very same kind of transition that is asked for below) as "inconsistency" and non-parallel application of editing principles to similar content (transitions, verbatim quotations). I do not know what leads to the inconsistency (double standard); it appears to be an attitude toward the source (Kampeas and the content in the source; not the nature of the source, which is reliable and verifiable). I simply point to that inconsistency (double standard) affecting content (what remains in the article, what gets deleted from the article). --NYScholar 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]

Please refer to WP:OWN. I can't even find the earlier discussion amidst the multiple archive pages. In any case, there is no rule in Wikipedia that discussions about improving flow and readability must end. The arbitration comment is wholly irrelevant. Either his father is, or is not, an investment banker. There is no reason to put those words in quotes. If we are to keep the quotes, it makes more sense to the reader to let the reader know (without having to consult the footnotes) who is being quoted (e.g. "According to Kenneth T. Walsh of U.S. News and World Report, Libby...). Otherwise the casual reader is left with the impression that there is some doubt about the assertion. There is no question of plagiarism for a properly cited three word factual description. Notmyrealname 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the articles and not on the editors. Stylistically, I think we should take out the quotes around "leniency" in the citation above as well. There is no need for it, and there is a proper citation. The current revision is second-best, but I can live with it. In the future, I can only hope that these discussions can be carried on more concisely and in a more civil manner. Notmyrealname 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard (once again, sigh) to the factual matter of Lewis Libby's being Jewish: I suggest incorporating the reliably- and verifiably-sourced phrase "who is Jewish" from several articles published via the Jewish Telegraphic Agency by its Washington, D.C. bureau chief Ron Kampeas into the following sentence already in the article:

On June 5, 2007, after Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Libby in United States v. Libby, citing sentencing letters that Libby's supporters had previously sent Judge Walton [and reiterating that Libby "is Jewish,"] Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington, D.C. bureau chief Ron Kampeas, observed that former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician and writer "Natan Sharansky was one of many Jews pleading for leniency for Lewis Libby -- to no avail" and that "Arye Genger, a New York businessman who served as a liaison between former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Bush administration, credited Libby with trying to reduce civilian casualties among Israelis and Palestinians during second intifada: 'His meticulous efforts with regard to issues concerning the prevention of loss of innocent lives and human suffering on both sides were remarkable,' Genger said." [Proposed additional content within brackets and bold typefont for consideration.]

Proposed additional phrase is in brackets and bold print in the above block quotation. The cited source is already in the text. It is:

Ron Kampeas, "Sharansky Leads Jews Pleading Leniency for Libby -- Without Success", Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 5 June, 2007, accessed, 15 June, 2007; rpt. in Ron Kampeas (JTA), "Sharansky and 173 Others Plead Leniency for Libby", The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, 8 June, 2007, accessed 15 June, 2007.

Kampeas' full sentence containing the phrase is: "Libby, who is Jewish, was the top adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney." The same or similar sentence (with "who is Jewish") appears in many of his other articles mentioning Lewis Libby.

One can add citations to the pertinent earlier and later Kampeas' JTA article(s) if deemed necessary. In many articles Kampeas uses the same phrase after Lewis Libby's name "who is Jewish"--a fact that would be of considerable interest to the readership of articles originating with the JTA and the The Jerusalem Post, including large numbers of Jewish newspapers published in the United States which publish information distributed by the JTA; any one of those articles is a reliable and verifiable source acc. to guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources and core Wikipedia policies referring to those guidelines, such as: Wikipedia:Verifiability; WP:Neutral point of view; WP:POV; WP:BLP; WP:BLP#Well known public figures, etc. --NYScholar 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [Corrected inadvertent typo. errors; updated. --NYScholar 21:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]

Reread the July 2 entries on Libby and fix. They are littered with typo and grammar errors. mpirages

Name of Libby's first law firm in Philadelphia

Re: Lewis Libby#Law Career: The name of his Philadelphia (first) law firm--Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis--documented during "Senate Armed Services Committeee nomination hearings" according to original research into those transcripts provided in "I. Lewis Libby in Philly and Beyond" by "Above average jane" (personal blog) on 13 October 2005. To avoid depending on such "original research"--WP:NOR--and use of a potentially-unreliable source (personal blog post) as only source, one would have to search the Armed Services Committee nomination hearings transcripts (which she says took her "a week and a half").

I noticed that for other parts of her article that blogger cites material that also appears in Mark Leibovich's 2002 WaPo Libby profile; e.g., "Above average jane" cites article by Daniela Deane, who writes: "The same year, in an interview with CNN's Larry King, Libby spoke of a childhoood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil "Scooter" Rizzuto":

• Daniela Deane, "Cheney's Right Hand Man Never Sought Limelight", The Washington Post, 28 October, 2005, accessed 30 June, 2007. (See "Note Well" below.)

Deane also provides another source (in addition to, say, Bromell) for Libby's having attended Eaglebrook School in Deerfield (MA). --NYScholar 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC) [updated; minor tc; threading. --NYScholar 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]

Also some more additional content info: While Deane repeats Leibovich's later published account saying that Libby's wife Harriet Grant is "a former lawyer on the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee"--material once in this Wikipedia article (perhaps w/o attributing either Schmitt or Deane--, Schmitt (article cited above re: "Irv") points out: "Not unlike other neoconservatives, Libby started his adult political life as an antiwar Democrat. At Yale he was vice president of the student Democrats, according to reports" [doesn't identify what these "reports" are]. [I added this material to the article on Libby later. --NYScholar 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]

• Note well: Deane's article ends w/ acknowledgment: "Staff writer Mark Leibovich contributed to this report." [Some of the same material by Leibovich thus appears both in Deane's report and in his own report published under his own byline, with somewhat different interpretation/emphasis. [Leibovich's article is already cited in this Wikipedia Libby article.] --NYScholar 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]

Update: Later I found a published reliable and verifiable source for the law firm info. and added that source to this article's citations. --NYScholar 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional documentation

I have added pertinent quotations from and citations to reliable and verifiable sources documenting highly-controversial and widely-contested points of view relating to Libby's work in developing U.S. foreign policy pertaining to Israel; please see the text and the citations. These matters pertain to issues being disputed in current arbitration. The quotations are documented with sources and feature Wikified links to related articles for further consultation and verification. These are all good faith edits of the content of this article consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and WP:BLP#Well known public figures. --NYScholar 00:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]

N.B.: I have just noticed that for at least over two months (and concurrently with the arbitration request concerning my editing of this article), there have been continual Wikipedia:Edit wars (and even claims of Wikipedia:Wheel wars) going on in the Wikipedia policy page for WP:BLP (in which Wikipedia administrators have been engaged). My own references to WP:BLP and (as sec. is currently called) WP:BLP#Well known public figures (which used to be a sec. simply called "Public figures" when I had linked to it in my earlier comments about Lewis Libby--and the associated controversy relating to Libby in the article concerning Temple Rodef Shalom) pre-date changes to WP:BLP made after I posted those comments. For more information, I suggest that users of this talk page consult the editing history of WP:BLP and the arbitration request matter (linked earlier; scroll up). For the record, once again: Lewis Libby is what WP:BLP in the past termed a "public figure" and is still what WP:BLP currently terms a "well-known public figure" in WP:BLP#Well known public figures. Those policies pertain to editing the content of this article about him. All Wikipedia articles about living persons (whether not well-known private figures or whether well-known public figures) require "reliable and verifiable sources," as per "core" Wikipedia "official policies" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:Attribution and guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite, with "full citations" as defined therein. (Links to such Wikipedia policies and guidelines are accessible via the tagged notices at the top of this talk page.) Thank you. --NYScholar 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Responses in the mass media to Libby's resignation: Proposed content

[followed by a means of shortening this article on Libby.]

I propose adding to the end of the current section called Lewis Libby#Resignation from government either a precis of the following block quotation or the full block quotation--introduced by a proper transition identifying its source as Ron Kampeas (a reliable and verifiable source)--and the appropriate citation (already in archived talk pages and this talk page): For example:

After Libby resigned, Ron Kampeas reports,

Across the blogosphere, anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel conspiracy theories were quick to tie Libby’s Jewishness to his role in selling the Iraq war, imagining once again a neo-con cabal that has a singular agenda: promoting Israel at all costs.

"One more Jewish Neocon Traitor," headlined the White Civil Rights Web site, which features the writings of David Duke.
Yet the fact that many people in Washington — including neo-conservatives — had no idea that Libby was Jewish [until Kampeas discussed "Libby's Jewishness" in his JTA press releases, the subject of his current article] 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.*

[Source (for discussion, please see this article's talk page archives and the current arbitration request):

*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 2 July, 2007. Rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?". Jerusalem Post (JTA), 6 November, 2005. Updated 7 November, 2005. Accessed 2 July, 2007. [Multiple other reprintings.]

Given the development currently in the previous section on Libby's government employment, Lewis Libby#Government public service and political career, I think that the passage above is useful and "encyclopedic" development. I think that it is better for this encyclopedia article to take account of these issues discussed in such reliable and verifiable sources pertaining to Libby than to hide from (censor) them. The hyperlinks to pertinent Wikipedia articles provide current Wikipedia information re: the phrases in the quotation. Please consider this proposal vis-a-vis all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, most particularly: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP#Well known Public figures; WP:POV; and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar [18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]

I am in favor of including the block quote. Notmyrealname 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortening this article on Libby: Proposed content

To shorten this article (currently 90K) and to avoid redundancy with other articles already well developed in Wikipedia, I suggest that after that section on his resignation, one simply have cross-references to the related articles pertaining to the Plame affair, United States v. Libby, and Valerie Plame#The Wilsons' civil suit and not repeat the information (not "reinvent the wheel"); these sections are: Lewis Libby#Libby's involvement in the Plame affair; Lewis Libby#Indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing; and Lewis Libby#The Wilsons' civil suit (inclusive of any and all subsections in them). (In the course of such shortening of this article's redundant sections, if it appears that useful content in this article pertaining to the others needs to be moved to them, one can incorporate it in those already-existing articles expeditiously.) All one needs to leave are the cross-reference templates to the other main articles and pertinent Wikisource and Wikiquote etc. templates.

Both in general due to the ongoing arbitration request and particularly out of courtesy to the other parties involved in it, I myself will not currently make these particular changes, but I do want to say that I think that doing so will improve this article. (See WP:Be bold for related guidelines.) This "biography" of Lewis Libby does not need to re-hash the details already covered in the other articles. With all that material excised, it will be much more concise and focused on the biography (notable aspects of the life) of Lewis Libby. Even though I have spent a lot of my own time attempting to improve the content of those sections containing content often originally provided by others, I still would favor this method of shortening this article. Doing so will make it more consistent with other biographical articles about such notable and well-known public figures (former and current public officials) in Wikipedia. (There are other articles that I've worked on in which similar changes of form/content could be just as useful methods of shortening them; e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, but I can't take the time to propose such changes to them now. Perhaps others will do so.) Thanks very much for considering these proposals. --NYScholar 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9