Talk:Lewis "Scooter" Libby indicted on five charges

This should be merged with the existing template about the CIA leak case.--vonbergm 17:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The title Lewis "Scooter" Libby indicted on five charges seems good. I suggest that useful material at --> Story preparation/Special Counsel ends probe into leak of CIA officer's identity be moved to Lewis "Scooter" Libby indicted on five charges. --JWSchmidt 18:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should try to get this out quick, where is the template?

I created this article, and believe we should copy paste everything from the other article here and put it up on the front page --Alpharigel 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone found the article. Good work. --vonbergm 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Last Background Paragraph
The sources for the last paragraph in the background sections went missing. I added in that paragraph last night with two sources. It is only peripheral information, so the paragraph could be deleted. I believe it provides an important perspective on where the indictments on obstruction of justice and false statments fit into the bigger picture. In people agree to keep the paragraph, the sources should be added again. --vonbergm 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

They probably got loss with the cut and paste I did. I thinks its good background and vote to put them back in. --Alpharigel 18:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, i will put them back in.  Done. --vonbergm 18:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Im going to take a few minuets and read the press release so we can add a "Charge Detail" section--Alpharigel 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. I added a half-sentence in the first paragraph detailing the indictments a little more.--vonbergm 18:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Assistant to President Bush
Did Libby also resign from his post as assistant to President George W. Bush? --vonbergm 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bush said in his 1-minute remarks that he accepted Libby's resignation, so I would presume:Yes. --Deprifry | +T+ 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No other way to interpret this, as this is the only position from which Bush could possibly accept Libby's resignation. Thanks. --vonbergm 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I missed Bush remarks, this goes over clumsy and I don't know what to do other than think the Bush mention is simply a formality ditto :| Edbrown05 21:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Attribution as required by the CC-BY 2.5
This article incorporates content from Story_preparation/Special_Counsel_ends_probe_into_leak_of_CIA_officer%27s_identity. The authors were: User:JWSchmidt, User:Borofkin, User:Edbrown05, User:Usbek, User:Vonbergm and User:Amgine. --Deprifry | +T+ 21:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While it is nice to credit everyone It is only required that it be attributed to "Wikinews". :) --Cspurrier 21:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think we are still required to maintain a list of authors here while allowing outsiders to attribute to "Wikinews", given that the editors still have the moral rights to their works, even if they release them under the CC-BY 2.5. --Deprifry | +T+ 22:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A link to the original article would suffice. Just wondering (I didn't actually contribute to story prep, just made a suggestion), why didn't the original story get moved to a new title? - Amgine / talk 23:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess people just rushed to writing when the news occured (there's actually yet another one here) - not checking if there were already stories on topic - so that's how the little confusion happened. --Deprifry | +T+ 23:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the work done on the preparation article should still be used. Wikinews should have another article about the ending of the investigation, not just the indictments. I would like to see an article which discusses who the investigation reports to, who paid for it, when it started and ended, especially why it ended and where it took place (the legal jurisdiction). If anyone wants to run with that... - Amgine / talk 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Source support for factual statements
I am going through edits to this article. There are a number of well-meaning edits which, undoubtedly, are supported by external sources. However, they are not supported by the sources currently in the article. Could some of the editors working on this article please examine the article for source support? - Amgine / talk 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which parts of the article need sources. For example, if the article mentions what was said in a State of the Union speech, do we need to link to the White House webpage for the speech? --JWSchmidt 01:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, any factual statement which is not widely known or which might be subject to debate. So, mentioning the State of the Union speech might not require a link, but quoting from it would require the link. If a news article says what our article says, it may be used as a supporting source also. - Amgine / talk 02:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Last indictment sentence?
I am wondering what happened to the last indictment sentence? This article is of historical significance, as the last sitting senior White House official indicted was 1875 according to the CNN article I referenced last night. I researched the 1875 indictment this morning - the Whiskey Ring fraud case in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. It would seem to make sense to include a reference to the case (which is covered in wikipedia and in excellent detail at: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/fall/whiskey-ring-1.html?template=print), again making the point that indictments of sitting major officials is quite unusual indeed. Anyone care to comment? --Psusen 13:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you define "senior White House official"? Also, is there a news-worthy distinction to be made beteen White House officials who resigned before being indicted and one who is indicted before resigning? --JWSchmidt 13:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good historical point. CNNs definiition of senior is reasonable.  - 81.97.155.10 20:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

deletion request
This article has a delete tag in the middle of it. Is it intended that the section in question be removed, or has this just slipped through editing? Brianmc 08:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because the Template:2003 Iraq pre-war intelligence infobox is up for deletion. I'm moving the DR-tag to the talk page so it doesn't show up on pages with this template. --Deprifry | +T+ 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Reporting dead link www.whitehouse.gov
editprotected
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-7.html has gone offline. The content in now available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-7.html.

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:17, 21. May 2009
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html has gone offline. The content in now available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html.

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:17, 21. May 2009