Talk:United States v. Libby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States v. Libby article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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.

Contents 1 Notes and References format 2 Press coverage of the trial 3 Notes 4 Tagged with semi-protection 5 Background 6 Semi-protection 7 External links 7.1 Faulty or outdated links

[edit] Notes and References format

There is a problem in the citations formatting in this article. It is not consistent. Some of the sources do not post correctly as notes. There is a mixture of external links and note numbers with further external links following some notes. That is confusing. It needs re-formatting into one consistent format. --NYScholar 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press coverage of the trial

The section currently in the article Lewis Libby would be more effectively placed here, but that cannot be done in a way that will preserve the notes features in that article. The notes and references format inconsistency in this article needs to be fixed (see my previous section comment) before the section can be correctly moved into this article. I am not familiar with using the citations format that previous editor or editors developed, so someone else who is familiar with the format used needs to fix the problem and to re-format citations in the section on "press coverage" in the course of moving it or copying it to this article. --NYScholar 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Someone has added material w/ notes in a format that doesn't match the already-existing and prevailing format in this article (that another editor began). I do not know this format and do not use it. The Press coverage in the Libby main article follows a diff. prevailing format. Please either remove the extra section or edit it so that it matches what is already in "References" format. --NYScholar 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since posting the previous comment, I've tried to integrate chronologically some of the information added in odd places by another editor. The Notes problems still exists. I've also incorporated the Press coverage of the trial section in this article, but the Notes problem needs fixing still: please see my explanations in the editing history, in my interpolated editorial notes (which show up only in editing mode), and in Talk:Lewis Libby. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged with semi-protection

Due to recent vandalism in the article Lewis Libby; see Talk:Lewis Libby for another editor's tagging that article; this article is being tagged for same reasons. --NYScholar 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Minor detail: shouldn't the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Libby is charged with five counts, all related to alleged involvement in Plame affair, the "outing" of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame"

be replaced with something like: "Libby is charged with five counts, all related to allegedly false statements made during the investigation of Plame affair, the "outing" of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame"

He was not charged with anything involving the actual "outing" -- only with making false statements during the ensuing investigation regarding how he found out about Plame's identity.

Polacrilex 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That suggested wording is good; the phrasing should be "the Plame affair", though. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix the misleading wording by placing the phrase "pursuant...investigation" in the sentence. It is accurate now. Please don't change it back to incorrect information. --NYScholar 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Template tag was added on March 6, 2007 for same reasons as added to Lewis Libby; see editing history of this article when it was added first; and Talk:Lewis Libby. These articles have been subject to vandalism and are therefore being semi-protected to help prevent recurring vandalism. --NYScholar 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please do not add material to external links that is inappropriate for placement in this section. Someone added: <<

• Shame on the Washington Post, Again... False Claims ... that Plame was not a covert CIA officer involved with sensitive counter-proliferation operations – and that therefore no real crime was committed when the Bush administration leaked her identity. ... Toensing leaves out, however, that it has been Libby’s defense lawyers who have fought to exclude evidence of Plame’s covert CIA status because they regard the fact as likely to prejudice the jury against their client.

>>

This was presented in incorrect format as an external link, when it appears to be a reply to another article, which is not cited as an external link. Please don't toss in items in this manner. "Full citations" are needed for controversial articles, and the material has to be relevant to the subject. If there is to be some discussion of this topic in the article proper, then perhaps it can be added as a source citation. This is not an appropriate manner of including it. It needs full rewriting as to pertinence and relevance to the some part of this article. Quotation marks are necessary when quoting passages from published material as well as full citations; for related editing guidelines and policies, see: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; WP:Cite; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV; WP:BLP; WP:Notability. --NYScholar 05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated above--I added a section to incorporate it and some other external links as "other references" and I also added the source to the article on Plame Affair. It contains a link to the Toensing article it replies to. --NYScholar 09:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add it in a new section of "Additional references', but realized that some earlier ed. or eds. had lost a whole group of full citations previously in the article. The notes sections need to be combined into one section in the format of the second notes section: see the editing comments in editing mode in the article. I don't know what someone or some people did to lose all those earlier notes, but I've restored them for the time being until the article's notes can be cleaned up properly so that all the notes in the first section of notes match the format in the second section. There should be no external links in the text of this article. All the notes need to be "full citations": Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faulty or outdated links

Current numberd ext. links in notes are problematic: for some I've provided pdf links that needed full citations; some seem outdated and all of them need full citations for proper sourcing. In attempt to make notes consistent, some prev. citations may have been lost and need full or better restoration. I've started the format. The rest of article needs similar cleanup. See the earlier comments re: this problem. --NYScholar 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [updatead]--NYScholar 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)