Jump to content

User talk:NYScholar/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

[material relating to sources for consideration by other editors (temporarily copied from Talk:Lewis Libby) for saving here:]

Additional biographical sources pertaining to Lewis Libby

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...."

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 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 11:11, 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)

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:

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.[1]

[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.[1][2][3][4]

Notes

  1. ^ a b Video clips presented on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC 6 March, 2007, 7:00–8:00 p.m., ET; repeated on 7 March, 2007, 3:00–4:00 a.m., ET.
  2. ^ Fitzgerald's post-verdict comments to the media, CNN 6 March 2007, accessed 26 April 2007. (Viewable only once per day.)
  3. ^ Transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference of 28 Oct. 2007, The New York Times 28 October 2007, accessed 26 April 2007.
  4. ^ "Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for", Media Matters 6 March 2007, accessed 26 April 2007.

--NYScholar 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [[tc; added links. --NYScholar 15:14, 27 April 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)
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.... 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.... 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) [1] and (in article) 25 January 2007) [2] 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)]

[Note: Re: Additional sources for dates in the article pertaining to his current status as a lawyer: Way back in September 23, 2006, there were some external links to public sources in the article that served as sources for dates of his admission to the PA Bar and the (Washington) DC Bar; subsequently, the links disappeared: For additional "Related external links" see:

  • DC Bar: Find a Member, which lists his date of admission to the DC Bar as "May 19, 1978" and the current status of his law license as "suspended";
  • Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, which lists his date of admission to the PA Bar as "10/27/1976" and his current status as a member as "inactive". (updated.) --NYScholar 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)]

[Note: Those sources indicate to me that Libby is no longer a licensed lawyer, as his law licenses have been suspended by both the PA and the Washington DC Bars; hence the "lawyer" categories would no longer seem applicable; he is, however, still Jewish, and multiple reliable verifiable sources listed in this archived talk page, in Talk:Lewis Libby (and his current talk page as of 1 May 2007) indicate that. The biographical article by his childhood friend Nick Bromell (as copied from the Libby talk page above) indicate that since at least the age of eleven years old, Libby has identified himself publicly as being Jewish (at boarding school, e.g.). See also: Nathan Guttman, "Top White House Posts Go to Jews", The Jerusalem Post 25 April 2006, accessed 30 April 2007 and 1 May 2007: "In the past year, several Jews who were holding senior posts in the administration have left, among them deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense Doug Feith, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and political adviser Ken Mehlman, who now heads the Republican National Committee." Guttman also cites some notable points of view on the subject of Jewish high-level political appointees and other White House staffers in the Bush administration, which can be related to other points of view on the subject discussed by other sources already cited in Lewis Libby, such as Kampeas and those he refers to. Updated. --NYScholar 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]

  • 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).

--NYScholar 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[Updated above by adding more of a quoted passage and my comments from relevant talk page in brackets. --NYScholar 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYScholar/Archive_5&oldid=791811771"