Talk:Scooter Libby

Very questionable assertion

Libby is "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago."[8][9]

Well lets see: Cisneros plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, as footnote [9] attests. Cisneros was the Secretary of HUD, and therefore a member of the cabinet, which is a higher position than Chief of Staff to the VP. The Secretary of HUD is 13th in succession to the President of the United States, and is approved by the Senate, two concrete measures of "highness".

I have updated to corrrect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no government scandal regarding Cisneros, he lied to the FBI about purely personal matters. I am removing the Cisneros remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.247.14 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my suggestion that the lead paragraph be stricken and that the article lead with the second paragraph. As currently written the reader has a distinct impression that the author is unable to put personal biases aside. As an example, Nixon and Clinton and Kennedy were presidents whose personal and career stumbles are known, but those are not necessarily article leading events. A similar comment was made in another post below. MMBUDNY. The preceeding debate about Cisneros demonstrates that some of the commentary is not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmbudny (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Libby's "stumbles" (i.e., felony convictions) are more significant in his bio than are lesser career events in the bios of men who served as President, and about whom there is therefore a much greater quantity of important material. I'll hazard a guess that, of all people who've heard of Libby, a majority have heard of him only because of Plamegate and its legal fallout. A comparable statement about any of the ex-Presidents would not be true. JamesMLane t c 05:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Loss of citations due to faulty editing

Whoever deleted the citations from this article needs to restore them. There are several missing citations due to faulty editing. Please check the citations formatting and correct these problems. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the problems; replacing the missing citations with the material with the citations; many citations were missing, in some cases, multiple references to the same source. Please be more careful and check the citations (notes) when making changes and make sure that you are not deleting already-verified reliable third-party published sources. See WP:Citing sources and earlier editing history for sources used in this article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Irving Lewis Liebowitz

According to two sources, the man was born Irving Lewis Liebowitz. For personal reasons, he declines to use his first name, Irving, and changed his last name from the Jewish-sounding Liebowitz. This many be of some interest to readers. --72.75.115.17 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This information has already been discredited in earlier discussions. See the archived material. The text of the article and the sources given in it do not support this information about his name; it is still not properly and indisputably documented. --NYScholar (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles, particularly those which must adhere to WP:BLP, because they are biographies of living persons or discuss living persons, editors are required to provide verifiable, reliable, third-party published sources of any such potentially "controversial" statements. The above anon. IP user has not done so. The information is reverted as per WP:BLP. Please read the material in the templates (at top) and examine previous (archived) discussions before making any such controversial changes to this article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My name is Earl

The first episode of the third season is called "My Name Is Inmate 28301-016", and searching in internet i found the inmate 28301-016 is called Lewis Libby (the same guy?). is it a coincidence of was on purpose?--200.104.161.230 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)--200.104.161.230 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interanl Wiki links

Is it me or does this article seem ridiculously over wikified? Do we need to internally link EVERY date? Also, is the dating format up to "standard"? I'll admit that I am not up to snuff on dating conventons, one of many areas that I haven't passed the Wki bar on yet :) Cheers, --Tom 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

separate article(s) and decrease size

This article seems a bit long even for a convicted felon--Levineps (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is hitchens cited for the Armitage point?

I was reading the criticisms section, and the wording seemed to cite the editorial from Christopher Hitchens for Armitage being the leak rather than the derived criticism. I've added a reference for the fact to clarify this. As a criticism section, it's appropriate to cite his argument, it just wasn't clear that this was happening. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: "CIA agent"

I've removed the following, which was appended to the "Notes" section of the article:

Please note CIA personnel are case operatives or whatever you like but they are notItalic text "agents." Agents are the people they have turned to work for them. FBI personnel are indeed "agents," hence, the confusion.

This comment was added by an anon. I have no idea whether the statement comment is correct, or whether anything in the article should be modified accordingly, but the comment obviously doesn't belong in the article itself. JamesMLane t c 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Judith Miller and the Neocons" is not a good source

Citation #43 "Judith Miller and the Neocons" needs to be removed for the following reasons: It does not support its cited claim "Months later, however, her new attorney, Robert Bennett, told her that she already had possessed a written, voluntary waiver from Libby all along." Nowhere in the article does it mention that. Also it is being used as a citation for what the "I" in I. Lewis Libby stands for which already has 5 other citaions. Additionally, i doubt Juan Cole is really authoritative on Libby's name. Finally, the piece itself is about Judith Miller, not Libby, and as such is not the best reference. I am removing this citation for those reasons. Bonewah (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to ABC/AP article by Sniffen and Apuzzo is dead

The URL targeted in citation #8 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2927810 brings up "Page Unavailable". The article does seem to have existed - google brings up this link purporting to reprint the article in its entirety: http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002685.php.

Anybody know how to get this article link working again? There are 5 points in the wiki article where the article is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can try the way back machine at www.archive.org. If that doesnt work, at least add a tag. Bonewah (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

4th Paragraph

is in need of editing for tone and WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead excessively long

In my opinion the length of the lead should be shortened by half. Strive for a CONCISE summary of content... Carrite (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While I wholeheartedly agree that his conviction is one of the most important events of his life, and should be summarized (concisely) in the lead, the lead in its current form goes into far too much detail. I made a small change to render the article more consistent with other articles on disgraced officials, but I honestly don't know nearly enough about the affair, let alone Libby's overall career, to fix the lead entirely. - 69.138.201.179 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainty of guilt

Even when someone has been convicted, isn't it normal to say "Scooter Libby was a high-ranking official etc who was convicted for ...", rather than labelling him as a convicted felon first (as though that's the most important thing he did)? Bigpeteb (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By comparison, the article on John Dean does not mention the felon convictions until the third sentence. Roger (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Libby ought to be described in a way that is similar to other famous people who were convicted of crimes. People keep changing the article to lead with the conviction. Please address the discussion here. Roger (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that describing Libby as a felon in the lead sentence is ridulous and childish acting out by the usual leftist cabal that does so much to screw up Wikipedia. Here, is the Dean entry, for comparison:

John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was a White House Counsel to United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[1] He was convicted of multiple felonies as a result of Watergate, and went on to become a key witness for the prosecution, resulting in a reduction of his time in prison.

We should model this, it is much more attractive and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.41.30 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing is starting an article on a living person in the past tense. If that's how another article does it then it's a good reason to change that article, not copy bad style to this one. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever read WP articles? Most famous people are famous for something in the past. Please try to achieve a consensus. Roger (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Of course people are famous for things they did in the past, but as long as they're still living they should still be referred to in the present tense. There is a consensus for using good grammar on WP and I suggest you follow it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the correct way to deal with living people who no longer occupy their position of notability is to say "X is a former..." rather "X was a...". The latter formula is used after they die.   Will Beback  talk  16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr Dugodugo (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better photo?

hey all. I assume this one has been hashed over, but if not, here's my say. The lead photo is somewhat inappropriate. It seems more like a PR or campaign glossy than a neutral image. To let everyone know I think I would call myself unbiased on this one. I'm not a left wing Republican basher and I'm not a radical on the right. I think Libby is guilty and should never have been allowed to serve and should have finished his sentence. On the other hand I don't know that he was part of some right-wing conspiracy to take over the world. So, a better image would show him in a neutral context (not tan and smiling and not grimacing or holding a newspaper over his face. I know we don't have copyright but some samples might look like; Libby Neutral 1 or Libby Neutral 2--Canadiandy talk 06:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheney's Book, Sec. of State Powell

Some major revisions are warranted. Sec. of Powell knew of the source of the the Plame leak, it was his very own under secretary. The Libby story is far from finished and needs serious analysis and review.

Elliott Widaski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.82.176 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)