Talk:Scooter Libby

Editing Issues

This is obviously a controversial topic. In the event you wish to raise a certain issue, please consider consulting the archives (both of them) to see if it has already been addressed or discussed. Eusebeus 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page Policy

From the tag at top: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." --NYScholar 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the problems currently facing editors of this article should not have been archived yet. They are still of current concern. They are dated March 6 and March 7, 2007. They need to be consulted before making "substantial changes" to this article. That is the policy for editing this article. Such changes must be discussed here in advance of making them. See also the WP:BLP, which governs editing of this article as well. --NYScholar 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i agrew with you NYScholar but i dont think that its possible to undo an archiv e even i f its totally retarded. i also wanted to know if you have any clarificaion that Lewis Libby's name was once Leibowitzt becore he changed it to just 'Libby'. Also, it dont htink that its encylcopedic to use a nickname in a serious research article it maeks us look carless a little bit. doe sanyone have any objection to my removing te word "schooter" except as a reference to it JUST being a nickname (dont think that it should in the first paragraph). i think that would make the article 100% much bettered. Smith Jones 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

rubbish. If you don't like the archiving, just revert it. Do you know how to do that? 207.107.108.157 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While it's possible it's probably not advisiable. I have to agree the archiving we ill-advised tho. Indeed, I'm not sure why the page wasn't just moved if the entire page was going to be archived Nil Einne 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisan blogs gossiped about "Leibowitz"; I've seen no notable reliable source that mentions that name as Lewis Libby's name. It could have (or not) been a family name prior to his birth; that doesn't make it his name. But there is no evidence that it was the Libby family name. One would need a notable reliable verifiable published source to cite, and at this stage there is none. See also WP:NOR. --NYScholar 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Where applicable, provide a link to the archived discussion. Reviewing the page, it is clear that a small number of editors are engaged in several ongoing debates, the tenor of which smacks of ownership and petty bickering. Sometimes it is good to make a clean start. If you disagree, however, you can always retrieve and paste back into the talk page those debates you feel remain germane to the discussion at hand. Eusebeus 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is his first name?

I find that it reflects on us VERY poorly if we don't even have the first name of the guy who is LINKED TO ON THE FRONT PAGE. Seriously, what's the "I." stand for? Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

His first name has been reported as either "Irv", "Irve", or "Irving". I'd probably go with the last one. Benoit (talk) (contribs)

One can't just "go with" some name; one needs a completely-reliable and verifiable source; such sources have been cited in previous versions of this article; however, none is entirely dependable and several contradict one another. Though the latest source that I've cited (scroll back through editing history is the "alma mater" "librarian" quoted in a news article, and that person said the "I." stood for "Irve," "Irve" could still be a nickname for "Irving"; one just doesn't know for certain; most news articles point out that I. Lewis Libby was not "forthcoming" about what the "I." stands for. The "Jr." in various sources' view is also questionable; just because the New York Times uses it does not mean that Libby still uses it; the court case name ("I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby") does not include the "Jr." at all in any of those documents. Many people do not use a first name and use an initial instead; that's their legal name. I don't know why Wikipedia insists on "changing" people's current names. It seems misleading to me. We don't know his so-called "given name"; we just know the name that he uses in government positions and in court documents, etc. [I will not be editing Wikipedia articles for at least the next week or two. So I will not see replies and comments here.] --NYScholar 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Some people normally use their 'middle' name as their first name but their full name is still publicly known. In this case, it appears that this is not the case for Libby so I have to agree the article as is is fine Nil Einne 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we call actors by their real name or their stage name? If Scooter is not his legal name wouldn't convention dictate we call him something like Horatio "Scooter" Libby, or whater his first name is? Numskll

His first name is disputed and has conflicting reports. Some editor removed my detailed note on the issue. I'll find out who and add back the note. Jokestress 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was asking about how stage names versus nicknames are handled and which we thought "scooter" was. Numskll 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source Needed . . . When?

General naive question: when is a source needed, and when it is not. Someone asked for a source for the fact that he has two children. Why doesn't anyone also ask for the source for his wife's name? Please note, just is not a criticism, but a general policy question. In any event, his lawyer claimed he had two children in closing arguments, noted many places, including here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sholom (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

As I understand it any assertation that is challenged (challengable?) should be sourced. This is, of course, a slippery slope (what if all assertations get challenged) but I beleive the hope is that common sense will prevail and only reasonable demands of attribution will be enforced. Numskll 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consistency on it at all, basically someone puts {{fact}} (which appears as ). It just comes down to one individual person adding the template. Mglovesfun 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that sums it up. Numskll 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I. Lewis Libby has been disbarred. See: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=23330&pdcount=0 Inactive means disbarred or quit in legalese. He should be listed as a "former lawyer" Or "criminal", NOT as a lawyer. Bearian 19:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Bearian ( I am an attorney).

That does not say he has been "disbarred." It says his licensure is "inactive." Until you have a source that specifically says he is disbarred, we can't say that per WP:BLP. Jokestress 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We can say that he is inactive in that state. But he may have been inactive in that state for a long period - based on geography. That is not pertinent to this article. What would be pertinent if there is a change to his status in Washington DC and/or Virginia - which is where he was practising law prior to joining the administration in 2001. So he should still be listed as a lawyer until there is factual evidence about his status. Davidpatrick 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

The article needs editiing. The first sentence in 'Background' is grammatically incorrect. It should be amended so as to read, "Libby was born into 'a wealthy family.'" His father was an investment banker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coslow (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC). Someone restored the errors; I've tried to correct them. --NYScholar 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting 'maximum penalty'?

Given that this is a current event, protected page, and a subject that I know very little about, I do not have intentions of editing this page. However, I would like to pose a question; in the "Indictment, resignation, and trial" section, it states that the maximum penalty may be up to 25 years imprisonment for the 4 felony convictions, while in the next section ("Verdict") it gives a maximum figure of 30 years. Is this contradictory, and should this be changed to a uniform number? Thank you for your time. Vendetta 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite

The lead only focuses on Libby's conviction. It needs to be rewritten to include other information about Libby. This article is supposed to be a bio. It's not a scandal page. Regards, --Jayzel 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby's "notability" is mostly due to the indictments and his former position as chief of staff to VP Cheney. Those are the salient facts highlighted in the introd. --NYScholar 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Libby's notability stems by and large from his crimes. Having said that I do think we need to avoid perjorative labels like "criminal" , however accurate, in the intro. Numskll 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Religion

Scooter Libby is an American Jew...why is he not categotized as such is beyond me. Rumsfeld is listed as Prebyterian and German, Bush is listed as a methodist politician of Hugenot ancestry, Einstein is listed as a Jewish Scientist. Every black politician is identified as African American. Why is this being censored??

Scooter being jewish is something that interests alot of people. If a few racists take that knowledge to try to propagate hate, so be it, but facts should not be censored. Otherwise, perhaps we should take away arab in the description of osama bin laden, or african american in the description of OJ, least we offend somebody. Whoever keeps reverting this back should have to explain themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.132.150 (talk • contribs)

• It isn't a matter of censorship, it's a matter of verifiability and compliance with WP:BLP, which specifically addresses the use of categories in BLP articles, particularly regarding religion. For a category to be used generally, it must be justified by something reliably sourced in the article. For a religious category in particular, two additional criteria MUST be met: That the subject publicly self-identifies as such, and that their religion is relevant to their notablility. I would agree that there are a lot of labels in other articles that should be removed. However, Osama bin Laden is a bad example. His religion and ethnicity is directly relevant to the jihad that he has launched. - Crockspot 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just use caution when removing categories or references to ethnicity. I got a one month block for doing that. Anyways, --Tom 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances of your particular block, but my stated reasons for removing the category are well within WP policy, which specifically requires the removal of that category in this instance. But thanks anyway. I know you're just looking out. - Crockspot 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What got me started was a group of anonymous ips added "Jewish-American" to approximately 800 lead sentences of biographes about 15 months ago. Most got changed back per WP:MOSBIO but many others went unnoiticed for quite some time. So no big deal right? But then somebody(s) had the bright idea of adding that tag and also the category tag to all the criminals of Jewish decent. Anyways, I agree with your above analysis that two wrongs don't make a right. The article as it reads now has a little blerb about Libby belonging to a Temple in Virginia, no big deal. Anyways, my point is that it seems that some folks have an agenda for either including ethnicity or not including ethnicity in these bios depending on their bent. Cheers,--Tom 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page. I must have missed the part about the temple, because I did not see anything in the article suggesting he was Jewish. Depending on the sourcing of that statement, my removal may be revertable, as long as the two criteria for use of religious cats in WP:BLP are strictly met. - Crockspot 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its reference #17. Its so inocuous(sp?) you don't even notice it which is nice. Like I said, I see instances where ethnicity is slammed into an article for its own sake ignoring article flow and relevance. Anyways, no need to add the category now. If I had my way, categories and lists would be removed but that will never happen and thats ok to I guess. Have you seen this user's take on it? Very well reasoned imho --Tom 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert to the category Jewish Americans again. Virtually every jewish american newspaper has described him as jewish, (ie. http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/03/09/news/world/scooter0309.txt), he belongs to a major temple in the DC area, and is a member of the Jewish Republicans. Considering that virtually every Bush cabinet minister has their ethnicity/religion described in their BIO, for consistency it should be in this one. I suppose some people may have an agenda in hiding his jewish ethnicity from the readers of wikipedia because some anti-semites might try to connect neo-conservatives with jews and zionists, but that noble goal is no reason for censorship. Reasonable people will not make that connection, but may still be fascinated in knowing his ethnic roots. Fermat