Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive 2

This archive includes threads from Talk:Joe Lieberman June 1st, 2006 until December 31st, 2006.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edits

Here I will explain why I keep having to revert the changes made by an anonymous IP. The sentence portion you added is in bold:

"Unlike "Scoop" Jackson, however, Lieberman has also been criticized for what is seen as conservatism on many domestic issues, including backing Bush on the Terri Schiavo case; looking to compromise on Social Security privatization.[1][2][3][[4], his opposition to gay marriage[5]; his attacks on other Democrats [6][7][8][9][10]; his support of Republican talking points[11][12][13]; his efforts to kill a gift-ban for lobbyists[14]; and, in the wake of the Enron collapse, his role in blocking rules that would require corporations to expense stock options.[15]"

The first problem is that much of this does not fit the flow of the sentence. The sentence was talking about Lieberman's perceived conservative qualities on domestic issues. What do "attacks" on other Democrats have to do with his position on domestic issues? And you do not even specify the nature of the attacks. Other points here are similarly vague, and his position on gay marriage is not relevant; many Democrats oppose gay marriage.

I know you will object that all these things you mention are "facts." But the point is that they are facts carefully selected to support a particular point of view, namely that Lieberman is a "Democrat in Name Only." Not everyone agrees with that claim, and those who disagree could just as well bring half a dozen more "facts" to counter the ones you have raised here. But the article should not be a dumping ground for every argument that has been raised. You seem not to be satisfied unless every argument in support of your viewpoint appears in the article. The article was fine how it was originally, where it summarized the views on each side, and gave no more than a couple of examples of how each side supports their claims. marbeh raglaim 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reversion in general, which left the page similar to how I last left it before revisions on both sides, but I also think that the "Lieberman's rhetoric" angle deserves a (much smaller) level of mention-- so I added a short mention of the problems critics it with a citation, along with citations of other domestic policy complaints, such that people can look them up for themselves if they would like more details. I think this ought to satisfy both sides.-KP 18:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm expanding the quote given about the June 3 petition announcement, to provide context. The current quotation is taken out of context by those without a neutral point of view, restoring that context is only fair.--Thud495 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks for your fair-mindedness. LionO 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"In fact many people are using the same arguments to throw out incumbent Lieberman as were used against Weicker."

Is there a source for this? The Lieberman/Weicker election was interesting in that Lieberman, the Democrat, ran against Weicker, the Republican, from his political right. I'm not sure how a primary challenge from the left-- a challenge I personally support-- is similar.

If you look at the arguments I had above, you'll see I do not like Joe Lieberman. While I think the article before I contested FRC on it was far too pro-Lieberman, and I set out to balance it, I ask that those who edit the article realize it is supposed to be fair, factual, and accurate. -KP 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations, Citations, Citations

I ran across a newspaper article that makes this comparison, so it is fair Wikipedia content and not "original research." I didn't save the URL, but you really should cite the articles that show such things when you use them.

This applies to various statements, most of which can be shown with a citation with a simple Google search. For example, I completely trust-- and in fact I think I remember-- that Lieberman endorsed school vouchers and NAFTA in the 2004 Democratic primary (the NAFTA endorsement being supported by Kerry, Edwards, and Clark as well), but without a citation you're taking a big risk that some editor, if he doubts the statements, will remove them because there is not an external link to prove them.

I've cited a lot of stuff that others have not provided citations for, but I may start adding "[citation needed]" tags rather than doing the work of finding the sources myself.-KP 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lieberman page reads like a pro-Lamont campaign ad

This page is pro-Lamont propaganda. Why not include ANYTHING positive about Lieberman in an article about him? It is written with a pro-Lamont spin. It is biased (and incorrect) to say that Lieberman is supportive of censorship - that's a judgment: he is in favor of regulating the sale of violent video games to children. Censorship overblows it. Why not include a discussion on his signature issue of the environment - his record is impeccable. Or is that to inconvenient to admit? What about the endorsement by the HRC for his position on Gay Rights? Again - too inconvenient to include? Why give judgment on Lieberman's bear cub ad? That may be a view that you take -- that it's a bad ad -- but that's not something you'd see in an encyclopedia. Let the reader decide. Or are Lamont supporters so concerned that their candidate will lose that they need to turn the Wikipedia into a political commercial?

Did I ever write that there should be no positive facts about Lieberman, or none that weren't already there? The fact is, though, you took out every negative reference when you put in unsourced positive references. Now, I added, when I reverted, your statement about his fighting for Civil Rights in Mississippi even though it was unsourced, because I've heard that before and believe it to be true.

If you want to contest something in the article that isn't sourced or that doesn't say what the source says, that's one thing. If you want to take out facts about Lieberman because they're inconvenient for him, or add unsourced statements that may not be true, that's another.

If what you said about Lieberman getting the NARAL endorsement is true (I could find nothing on his site trumpeting it, so I doubt it), then it makes perfect sense for you to add it. But when you then take out NOW's opposition to him at the same time, it appears as if you want only to include supporters and not opponents.-KP 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a commercial of a political candidate disguised as an encyclopedia. I can portray you as an angry, vicious poster and cite this "talk page" as a source -- but the source is being interpreted -- the source doesn't show you as an angry, vicious poster -- but the way I use the source does. Similarly, to say that what Lieberman is doing "amounts to censorship" is an interpretation of sources -- it is, in my opinion, an incorrect interpretation and one that your sources do not show to be true. Similarly, this page is selective in what it chooses to source. Note the emphasis on anti-Lieberman sites that are used as sources. I hardly think of commondreams or dailykos as "proof". Use less biased sources -- hence why I deleted particular sources. I also included information on the environment and his stances on gay rights -- he has been endorsed by the HRC -- easily verifiable. Why was that not included? You are right, however, that NARAL has not officially endorsed him: he does, however, receive high ratings from NARAL, who have not made an endorsement (yet). My error. Thank you for catching it.

Much of what's on the Lieberman page should be moved to the Lamont page. It's more a rah-rah Lamont article than an unbiased report on Lieberman

Okay, and NOW has endorsed Lamont, and has always refused to endorse Lieberman. So, why take that out? Is that fact in dispute? Of course it isn't. You have to read what is written carefully to see if it is accurate. "Amounts to censorship" may be a value judgment, and may need to be changed to "criticized as amounting to censorship," with a source showing the criticism. And if that source is DailyKos or whatever, it still shows what a great number of people criticize. If there's no source that can be found, then that particular statement can be deleted.

I don't mind seeing true pro-Lieberman facts added to the article. I mind you disputing proven facts that are inconvenient for Lieberman, though-- because if you say that "Lieberman has been criticized for..." and link to a widely read source that makes that criticism, then that is a fact and should not be removed or questioned.-KP 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The LionO edits weren't unbiased, but very biased in Lieberman's favor.

Done. I am in the process of deleting all of your quotes that do not have sources, and adding more pro-Lieberman material with sources.

LionO

You are making it impossible to assume good faith when you remove or bury anything that makes Lieberman look like anything other than a liberal and a saint.

There are countless editors who have looked at the page. I've actually in the past had to hold it back from being a truly anti-Lieberman bias.

You have, in fact, added some constructive content to the page in adding pro-JL facts (although some "facts" you added proved not to be factual, but others have and those are fine to include). You have also, however, removed things-- not because they were false or unproven, but because you don't like the light they cast.

There is a Wikipedia policy that you should not oppose the consensus of editors. If you look at how many editors contributed to the page and did not see fit to remove facts that you are removing, you will see that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy.-KP 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

liberal and a saint.  C'mon... you gotta choose one or the other! ;->

K13060/LionO dispute

Please, I'd ask that the two of you read the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page. I don't really have time to get sucked into this, but it's clear that you need some help. -- RobLa 05:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to to enlist mediation, and then I saw there was a waiting list of up to 10 days. I'd love to use mediation, and then if/when LionO refused to listen to the mediator then arbitration; but apparently he could mess up the page for over a week until a mediator could even look at it. -KP 05:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding that: I'd also be eager to compromise on certain things. It's fair to point out, for example, that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were also DLC members. But LionO doesn't seem to be willing to look for compromise. He hasn't sought it on this page, nor through his edits. He wants to remove the fact that the DLC is the centrist wing of the party. Now, I see huge differences between Clinton and Gore on one hand and Lieberman on the other-- but if he wanted to talk it through and said "okay, let's at least point out that Clinton and Gore were also DLC members" I'd say that was fine.

The thing is, he seems uninterested in resolving things, and going for an official third party seems to take forever...which was why I asked you on your talk page, as you seem reasonable enough.-KP 05:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have time to get sucked in any further. Please make an appeal on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, stating that this is for an upcoming election, thus a little more time-sensitive than most articles. You may also try Wikipedia:IRC. -- RobLa 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just for the record I want it to be clear I'm openly stating this: The apparently-anonymous IP address listed just before my "cleaning up my own mistake" edit is me. I obviously had logged myself out of Wikipedia accidentally somehow. I wasn't trying to sock-puppet, and to avoid the appearance that I was I'm directly saying that that was me.-KP 06:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

compromises

I appreciate the compromises that K13060 has made, and I hope he appreciates mine. The issue seems to revolve around the introduction. His version, in my mind, uses too many anti-lieberman sources as a way of introducing the article. I have tried for what I hope is a more balanced approach.

There is first a philosophical problem: Lieberman is not a politician who can so easily fit into left/right constructions, but the introduction that I encountered presented him far too simplistically (i.e. "conservative, DINO, Republicrat" when discussed by 'real' Democrats).

Similarly, there is a definition problem: One person's definition of "liberal" or "centrist" or "conservative" is different from another's and these terms were/are/still continue to be thrown around too sloppily.

Also, there is a source problem: The introduction that I encountered was heavily rooted in sources that were anti-Lieberman, pro-Lamont voices, and several were blogs that tended to cite other blogs as "proof." It was short on unbiased sources.

Finally, there is/was a Point of View problem: the intro could easily be read as coming from someone who did not support Lieberman. It seemed designed to paint him in a negative light. From what I can see in the history of thechanges, the problem is that the point of view has been supported by those who support Lieberman's opponent. One's political positions are getting in the way here.

The introduction had been read by numerous editors, who had no problem with it. You make some false statements in yours, such as that only far-left Democrats view JL as a DINO. Being a non-far-left Democrat and an admirer of Bill Clinton, I know that is not true. I do have a POV, and I'm not claiming not to. I'm saying that LionO clearly has a POV that he is promoting, and his version of the opening paragraph looks as if it were written by JL's press secretary.

My personal POV, as a non-far-left Democrat, is that any Democrat who George W. Bush would kiss and who is very much liked by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, is not a good Democrat. Obviously, I have no more right to make the article show that conclusion than LionO has to make it show the opposite. But what I did was present sources on both sides, what they said, and let people decide for themselves. He, instead, originally took out anything that wouldn't be approved by JL's press secretary, and still tells the reader that only the extreme left wing thinks JL is a DINO.

Can I add my two cents, as one who wouldn't vote for Lieberman or Lamont? IMHO the Lamont endorsements, etc. belong on the Lamont page. Putting all the endorsements for Lamont on the Lieberman page, frankly, shows a transparent bias against the subject of the article. Think of it as an apolitical but subjective subject, like...football. I can't stand the Dallas Cowboys, but it would be ridiculous for me to go to the Cowboys page and start listing all the great people who are Washington Redskins fans and don't care for the Cowboys, wouldn't it? --Beth C. 08:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine if you remove all the endorsements in both cases. If you give only the Lieberman endorsements and not the Lieberman opponents, that would be like listing all the Cowboys' accomplishments and none of their failures, and would give a reader a false impression that the Cowboys have never made a mistake. -KP 08:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to list Lieberman endorsements and not Lamont endorsements, but put a link to Lamonts' page where Lamont's endorsements as it would be read. After all, on a Dallas Cowboy page you WOULD list all of the supporters, fans, sponsors, etc, but not the supporters, fans and sponsors of the Redskins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LionO (talk • contribs) 16:00, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm thinking too. Might this might add to the debate? I do think it's highly relevant crucial to include a link to Lamont's page, of course. BTW, I know I'm butting in a serious debate here; I hope you don't mind me dropping in my two cents. ;-) --Beth C. 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Beth your comments are wonderful and I appreciate your thoughts -- I think you are right here and I agree with your thoughts about the changes. LionO 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, K13060, your definitions of conservative, centrist, left, far-left, are not similar to mine, nor anybody else's. No two people share the same definitions and therefore those terms should be avoided. Bill Clinton would not call himself a centrist or a conservative and yet you are saying that he was president of an organization that viewed itself as that. Why not use the DLC's terms? They are an organization that seeks to view politics through lenses other than the traditional left-right paradigm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LionO (talk • contribs) 16:02, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

"...organization that seeks to view politics through lenses other than the traditional left-right paradigm." Hmmm. OK, but isn't there a concise way of saying that? I know "moderate" is probably objectionable to everyone, but in common usage, the DLC is considered "moderate" or sorta "centrist." (Not "conservative!") Tough call. --Beth C. 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your comments - much appreciated. I would be ok with "moderate", but I agree with you: that term is a loaded one and doesn't mean a whole lot. LionO 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

K13060's vandalism

K13060 is determined to make this page a pro-Lamont, anti-Lieberman page. He is determined to revert this page back to a pro-Lamont page, cutting SOURCED, CITED information that is inconvenient to this goal and replacing it with UNSOURCED, UNCITED information that appeals to his agenda. He says that he is compromising, but once again, he reverted the page back to an unsourced, poorly researched pro-Lamont page. He says he is compromising, but seems to misunderstand the term. It's not a compromise when you find that pro-Lamont supporters agree with your edit. He must stop deleting well-researched information that he finds inconvenient. His behavior is a violation of wiki policy.

Objection: Who is the real vandal?

Actually, LionO, you're the one who others have reverted for "vandalism." I'm not sure that either of us have engaged in vandalism in the strict Wikipedia sense of the word, although I admit to having used that word to describe your edits as well.

What we're really accusing each other of, I've heard called "POV loading." The reason I feel I'm in more accordance with Wiki policy than you are is that editors besides you who look at the page had uniformly found the basic content to be fair before you came along. FRCP, a fairly dogmatic neoconservative who is pro-Lieberman, who I did have some degree of conflict with, ended up being satisfied with a version similar to that which you saw.

He was not easy for me to work with, but at least did talk things through on the talk page with some effort of reaching consensus.

Others did pile on some anti-JL info after that, and it would have been fair to balance that. I removed some of the anti-JL or pro-Lamont material myself, if I found it unfair, and I also commented on this page, as you can see, that people needed to source their statements if they were controversial.

Some of the other things you say, such as your objection to calling the DLC a collection of centrist and conservative Dems, or your previous refusal to accept Weicker as a liberal Republican...see the page on the Democratic Leadership Council (as I think you may have looked at Weicker's page).

The DLC was formed after the 1984 election based on the belief that the Democrats needed to move toward the political center to gain votes. I think at that time they were correct. And when I or others say they are centrist to conservative Dems, a "centrist Democrat" is not a centrist American, but a member of the more centrist wing of the party-- the Clinton wing, as opposed to the Howard Dean/Ted Kennedy wing. Bill Clinton would rapidly say yes if asked if he were a "centrist Democrat." A "conservative Democrat" can be close to the American political center, on the right wing of his party but the right wing of the more liberal party is near the political center.

Something that was lost, IMO, to some degree with the DLC in general, and is completely lost on JL-- again, in my view-- is that being more centrist does not mean abandoning party loyalty. Al Gore is the antithesis of JL in that way, a centrist Democrat (by my description above) and DLC member who still attacks Bush merciliessly.

As to why I reverted, I found that compromising with you-- which I tried-- seems impossible. Even facts can be misleading without context. You want to include every Democrat who has expressed support for Lieberman, but you either need to contextualize that or remove it, if you are to paint a fair picture. The context is that Senators and Congressmen will (practically) never support a primary opponent to an incumbent of their own party, and become personal friends within the Senate and help each other out. When I tried to compromise, I left in your list of organizations that have endorsed JL; he benefits from incumbency there as well, but it isn't nearly the same, so while there was some PR dumping there too, I was willing to leave it in.

You additionally removed my sourced statement, from a column BY Bill O'Reilly, where he heaps praise on Lieberman. You say he never endorsed him, but when I typed "Lieberman O'Reilly" in Google, I got many, many hits of "O'Reilly endorses Lieberman." Instead of using one of those, I chose to use an article written by O'Reilly himself. If you say it was out of date (I'm not sure; I didn't look back and see) then you should retract all the position statements you attribute to Lieberman that JL made when he was running as Al Gore's running mate and took some positions to mesh with Gore's.-KP 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CON and WP:SPA for two major policies that LionO violates.-KP 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection: You are sloppy in your editing and you have shown little willingness to compromise

I don't buy it: you have rarely engaged in compromise. When you see one thing you don't like, you delete every and any edit that you find inconvenient - even though others have found them to be appropriate. You do not care whether something is sourced or not. So long as it is unsourced but is pro-Lamont, you've reverted to it.

Regarding O'Reilly: O'Reilly never endorsed Lieberman's campaign - which is what you presented. You included an article in which O'Reilly supported Joe's take on the Iraq War and presented it as an endorsement of Joe's campaign. Nevermind that the article doesn't talk about the campaign. Nevermind that the article was written in 2005 - before Lamont or the Republican Schlesinger announced their intention to run - you just wanted to fool people into thinking that O'Reilly is supporting Joe Lieberman in the 2006 campaign. Now who's posting out of context?

Regarding the DLC: I think you do a better job here of explaining how you are defining "centrist" and "conservative" than you did in your DLC edit. These terms are not universal but they were used to fool people into thinking that Lieberman is out of the mainstream. The way you discussed it here, with these definitions, he's not. Having said that, the current description of the DLC is accurrate and avoids vague terms because it adopts their mission statement as their definition.

Regarding Joe's endorsements: baloney. They are not out of context. They did not need to be deleted and I'm glad that they are now back. That's YOU trying to explain away why people would endorse Joe (they have to because they are his colleagues) and rather than back that up with a source, you decided it was too inconvenient to find an unbiased source that says this, and instead deleted it. Personally, I think the whole 2006 campaign section should be deleted and the link to the 2006 campaign page be placed there instead. Or, if you want to delete Joe's endorsements - that's fine - but delete Ned Lamont's too. I'm fine with a very brief section that says "Joe Lieberman is running for reelection in 2006. His Democratic Primary challenger is Ned Lamont. The Republican challenger is Alan Schlesinger. For more information see CT 2006 Senatorial Campaign." Fine by me. End of discussion.

You seem to avoid compromise by being trigger-happy with your reverts. If it's not pro-Lamont enough, you've just gone back to where the discussion was amongst pro-Lamont supporters who were doing their darndest to make this a pro-Lamont advertisement. I don't know who FPRC is, but he does not represent me and if he was satisfied with your version, I find it very hard to believe that he was a Lieberman supporter. Regardless, you have not achieved consensus, so please stop claiming it. That's dishonest manipulation. The current version works. Let the reader make up is/her mind.

I have achieved consensus, as except for one reversion and adding tags, I haven't touched the article today. Several others have, adding info you also want to hide. There is literally no one who prefers your version.-KP 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Today, at 19:04, you reverted back to a pro-Lamont version, erasing everything that had been added, even things we agreed upon. I changed it back. Since then, nobody has added any information from your pro-Lamont version. That's a lie. By the way, Beth C. has no problem with this version, nor does the lorax, who added a small section on the Bush kiss. Furthermore, an anonymous user corrected a mistake and passed on the version. There are people who agree with the updated, non-biased version. You are mistaking consensus for your own opinion.

Mediation request

Please assume good faith and remain civil. Accusations of vandalism will get us nowhere.

I recommend you do not edit the article while discussing the matter here. Simply reverting back and forth is not productive.

I am sorry to say that I doubt that putting a deadline on this discussion will help. It takes time to hash out issues and reach an acceptable compromise. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. Ideogram 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Ideogram 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I filed yesterday with the Mediation Cabal. Unfortunately, of course, the Cabal is backlogged (unless you are here as the mediator, in which case I hope you may proceed as you find appropriate).-KP 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not the "official" mediator, but I will try to help. Ideogram 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Generally we try to achieve NPOV by including all verifiable facts. Ideogram 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my view of what needs to occur

First, I think LionO needs to state where he is coming from in his personal biases, as I freely have and will elaborate here. I am a Democrat, somewhere between what I explained as the "centrist Democrats" and the more liberal view. On a lot of policy grounds, I agree with Lieberman's stands. I support the death penalty and NAFTA; and while I've come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq cannot be won at an acceptable cost in lives, I supported it when I believed it would be less costly. Lieberman's view of the war doesn't bother me significantly, although a lot of his opponents are bothered greatly by it. I would have voted against Kerry's strict withdrawal timetable, but for Levin's more moderate proposal.

The reason I dislike Lieberman, though, is that he is not a loyal Democrat (or at least I don't see him as one). He criticizes fellow Democrats often, carries water for Bush (and I truly despise Bush), even trying to compromise on Social Security privatization when the Dems had Bush beaten on the issue, and is the only Democrat I hear very often equating criticism of Bush with helping our enemies.

LionO's first round of edits of the page led to a page that could easily have been written by Lieberman's press secretary. The current page is not equally bad, but he has taken out or buried much information that explains why some Democrats would dislike Lieberman. Only 49% of Connecticut Democrats approve, in the last poll I know of, of Lieberman's job performance, so any page that would lead to nearly every Democrat liking him must be deceptive.

Basically, if I read a page about JL and feel that if that page were all I had read about him, I'd like him, I instantly know it is biased-- as I know a lot about him and dislike him.

LionO believes the article must be purged of quotes from blogs that oppose Lieberman. Yet, those blogs include verifiable facts that are true regardless of their being printed due to the blogs' dislike of Lieberman. They also represent the opposing view to the PR points he makes.

Let me note that I had not read any such blogs regularly (and only "Crooks and Liars" even irregularly) before I began fighting over the content of this page, which was settled with a version that all at the time could live with.

Basically, I feel that the page only has NPOV if someone with my presuppositions, upon reading it, could reach the same conclusion I did; and, because it is NPOV, if someone with LionO's suppositions could read it and reach the same conclusion he did.

He did add some worthwhile facts to the end of the second part of the above, but seems to wish to quash anything that results in the first part of it.

I also think that no page about a controversial subject (a politician or anyone or anything that is controversial) should be something that the subject's PR firm would approve. In that regard, I would even flat out say that the last I saw of the Ned Lamont page, it is unfairly biased in Lamont's favor. If you look at edits I made to that page, I actually made some edits to make it less of a Lamont PR page, but those were quickly washed away.

It is true that due to my bias I chose not to fight pro-Lamont bias there (accepting the removal of my changes on Lamont's page) but to fight here.

It is clear that LionO supports Lieberman, but explaining where he stands and why he likes him, I think, is the first step to understanding. At that point, we could work toward a page that would give people the facts they need to lead to their agreement with either of us, depending upon how they think a Democratic Connecticut Senator should behave.-KP 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. My understanding of Wikipedia is that all editors will inevitably have biases, but we counter those biases by insisting that articles have verifiable sources for their statements. It is not sufficient to include statements from both Pro- and Anti-Lieberman camps if those statements are not verified. Generally blogs are considered a poor source of verification; newspapers and press releases are much preferred. For instance, if you can quote from Bill O'Reilly's recorded statements that he supported Lieberman on some issue, you can mention that quote in the article. Of course if the quote does not explicitly say that O'Reilly supported Lieberman in general, you cannot make that claim. Ideogram 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read it many times, and all I have to do is Google "O'Reilly Lieberman" to get a list of sites with specifics on O'Reilly's support of Lieberman. LionO says I can't use those sites because they're anti-Lieberman. They are, and that's why they made a point to print it. That doesn't make it false.

That might, perhaps, be the #1 thing I'd want in terms of editing: That if I quote a source and link to it (and let those who are interested judge its credibility), that LionO won't remove it. I don't care if it is from a site that opposes Lieberman.

I also think-- and this is a harder point to make-- that loading the page up with politicians who have endorsed JL for their own reasons violates relevance. Politicians (almost) never endorse a challenger to an incumbent from their own party. That's nearly impossible to prove, because how do you prove that? You can't prove a negative. But it is true. Better then to leave the endorsements by politicians (as opposed to groups) out, IMO.-KP 03:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the O'Reilly issue - that's not what is happening. I have never said that you can't use sites that discuss O'Reilly's support of Lieberman's campaign. Quite the reverse. You posted a claim that O'Reilly endorsed Lieberman's 2006 campaign, but failed to provide a source that verified this. When I called you on it, you offered an article from 2005 in which O'Reilly said he supported Lieberman's stance on Iraq. This is not the same thing as supporting his campaign, especially obvious since the article came out in 2005 before a Republican or a Democratic challenger announced their candidacy. It is not good enough to just say that you've seen it said hundreds of times when you google Lieberman and O'Reilly. If so, then provide a verifiable source. I agree 100% with Ideogram: "Generally blogs are considered a poor source of verification; newspapers and press releases are much preferred." Your version of the page was quite biased because of unverified claims and because of the use of poor sources.

I am perfectly happy with removing the listings of all endorsements - politicians, people, groups, whomever. (It is not acceptable to me to remove the names of politicians because you think that politicians supporting Lieberman is a "given." If so: provide a source. And even if that is the case - which I do not think it is - who cares? Not all Senators have yet stated their support for Lieberman - only those listed on his endorsement page. I also think it is very significant that all major CT Democrats seeking election in 2006 have endorsed Lieberman and not Lamont, but that was information you removed as well. Frankly, I am perfectly happy with removing the entire 2006 campaign section and just providing a link to the 2006 campaign page.

I do not think that I need to clarify my "take" on Lieberman. Every poster has a bias; the goal is to produce something encyclopedic and that is my goal here. LionO 04:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First, it is hard to assume good faith when you refuse to say where you're coming from. You might be a Republican who wants JL re-elected to help Bush. If so, you're being very dishonest in trying to edit the article to make it sound like JL doesn't help Bush. And that's how you want to make the article sound.

You must assume good faith. We can't even have a discussion if you don't. --Ideogram 12:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ideogram. I don't think you have assumed good faith about me. It's not necessary for me to articulate my "take" on Lieberman. Every poster here has a bias. The goal is to produce something encyclopedic. That is my goal. It is up to you to assume good faith. LionO 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, you assume that every fact that is negative for Lieberman originally came from me. Not all did, and I don't think that the majority did. I was about to say I didn't add the O'Reilly endorsement material; but in case I did and forgot, I'll simply say that I don't think I did and don't recall doing so (and if I did I definitely cited a source). Almost all, if not all, unsourced (or unsourced until you took out sources you didn't like, including the Hartford Courant in at least one case) anti-Lieberman aspects of the article did not come from me. I cite if I'm going to add. You'll see above somewhere where I posted "citations, citations, citations" asking people to cite sources when adding material.

I have not assumed that every unsourced, unverified statement that is negative for Lieberman has come by you. However, I do know that you keep reverting back to those versions in their entirety when you see a sourced edit that you don't like. The Hartford Courant site is still there. I'm on the fence as to whether it belongs there as "proof" because it is an opinion editorial. However, in the context it is used, I think it's ok.

You called it my statement of the O'Reilly endorsement, when it didn't originate from me. I reverted back to versions with the section after you had removed a lot of sourced statements, when you didn't like the source, had characterized all of JL's opponents as the extreme left, etc., and I didn't have two hours to put aside to change all the mischaracterizations. Yes, the statement included in the Hartford Courant article is there, now-- after you removed it a dozen times.

And as far as assuming good faith, you don't seem to on my part. I have biases, and have even gone beyond you and stated exactly what they are. However, on this exact talk page you can find me pushing people to find sources for the anti-Lieberman material they add or not add it. I sourced (and changed the info, when the source didn't verify it) several such statements myself, and then got tired of doing the work for them.

Now, on O' Reilly, did I say "hundreds?" If I did I was emotional and caught up in that. There aren't hundreds, but there are many, sources on Google that are headlined "O'Reilly endorses Lieberman." I'm checking right now to see what they actually say, and looking at one, it appears from the transcript (posted on, oh my God, a blog!) that he did not directly endorse him. When I eventually add the information, I'll be sure to include his exact words and not claim an actual endorsement unless I find one.[16][17].

You are right: you said "many times", not "hundreds." The result is the same, however. He has not endorsed Lieberman's campaign, though I have seen blogs that have spread the rumor that he did. Nobody has been able to find a source that verifies this rumor.

So far, you're correct that I can't find it either, and thus a quote of what he actually said should be what is used, and in fact what I'm proposing is that we characterize nothing as an endorsement, anyway-- including endorsements (not that O'Reilly's necessarily was one) that make JL look bad.

And I think I should be able to say that "O'Reilly said of Lieberman in 2005..." and quote from his own article, and of course since I have to qualify it with the year, any statement sounding like a Democrat that Lieberman made before 2006 you should have to add the year to. Many of your sources are statements from 2000 when he spoke as Gore's VP candidate and reflected Gore's views rather than Lieberman's.

Not quite. This article is about Joe Lieberman - his life, his tenure, his 64 years on planet earth. It is not an article about the 2006 CT Campaign - there's another page for that. Right now, I think the page ephasizes 2006. The man has been in office for 18 years and has been alive for 64 years! Lamont has been around for three months and yet Lamont is all over this page. There seems to be unbalanced information there. Take a look at the Hillary Clinton page, who is also running for reelection. You'll notice a brief, unbiased introduction that does not attempt to analyze her, and a thorough, unbiased narrative of her life and times. Use that as your model.

This is actually a very fair point. One reason I sought mediation was to at least get this discussion going, one in which you had not been willing to participate (I had posted many more times here than you had). You're right that the 2006 CT campaign is overplayed in the article. It deserves some mention, mostly in a small campaign section, but its mention in other areas should be much more limited than it is.

However, one specific area is unfair: Any statements Lieberman made or positions he took between Gore's choice of him as VP in 2000 and the 2000 election are not necessarily representative of Lieberman's views and instead were views expressed on behalf of the Gore-Lieberman campaign. They represent Al Gore's views much more than Lieberman's. Therefore, they should not be used. A fairer place to look for JL quotes would be from using some of the sources you use, but from the 2004 Dem presidential primary (I think a couple of your quotes do come from there). Note, he's still trying at that point to appeal specifically to Democrats, and thus will try to sound more liberal than he is. But I'm willing to accept them as fair game, though; at least Lieberman stated them as his views in his own campaign.

We cannot take positions on whether statements made by Lieberman were representative of his views or not. That constitutes Original Research. We can only report what statements he made. Ideogram 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One can take all kinds of things out of the context in which they were said to "lie with the truth." It's what distorters like Fox News do all the name. I'm not saying I want to place "not representative of his views" on every such statement; I'm saying such statements of policy cannot be fairly used to represent what JL says he believes.

Hell, hypothetically (if I wanted to spend 10 hours) I could go count up how many times JL said "the president is right" or something similar and report that he said that or something similar, say, 150 times. The thing is, if he said that 120 times about Clinton and only 30 times about Bush, what I'd say would be technically true but would present a false image.

If you can find a verifiable source, like a newspaper article, that said that Lieberman said that, you can say it in this article. Ideogram 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that something you think is good for Wikipedia, for editors to use technically true statements to present a false image? I could do play that game in less ridiculous ways as well. A little research among CT newspapers, and I could make JL sound like he contradicts himself all the time-- using nothing but provable, documented quotes.-KP 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take positions on what is true, only what is verifiable. Read WP:V. Verifiability, not truth. Ideogram 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But if you know that the verifiable content creates a false image, and let it remain, then you are probably violating WP:NPOV. Pudge 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Read the policy. "Verifiability, not truth". Basing content on your opinion is Original Research. Even if the world is round, if all the literature says the world is flat, Wikipedia must say the world is flat. --Ideogram 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Everything ever put in any Wikipedia article is based on someone's opinion about what is worthwhile to include in the article in order to present relevant and informative content to the readers. That's the level we're talking about here. Is it relevant and interesting that Lieberman ate pasta two weeks ago last Thursday? What does that say about him that is of any interest to the readers? Does it add to the portrait being painted of the man himself? To pretend that we can just throw up information that is not verifiable without any regard to how that adds or detracts from the usefulness of the article is fanciful. Pudge 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) That's not what you said, and that's not what we're discussing. We're not arguing about whether to include information about his meals. You wanted to talk about whether verifiable content creates a false image, which I am saying is not relevant. --Ideogram 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not true. That is what I said, and that is what we are discussing. Whether verifiable content creates a false image is absolutely relevant, if it is happening knowingly. I know you are saying it is not relevant, but you're wrong. Pudge 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it is unverifiable and original research. --Ideogram 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you are. Repeating your claim isn't very enlightening. Pudge 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the relevant policies. If you can cite sources that say or show Lieberman didn't believe what he was saying, go ahead and include them. But we can't go around deciding for ourselves which statements he believed in and which he didn't. --Ideogram 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read them. And what you are saying is beside the point. The topic here -- you appear to forget

You're getting dangerously close to a personal attack there. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. Please read the relevant WP guidelines, and stop going off-topic. Pudge 15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I feel you are making a personal attack I will be happy to take it up with arbcom. They get to decide, you don't. --Ideogram 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What an odd statement. After all, I get to decide just as much as you do; you're the one who brought it up, and it seems to me that your statement "They get to decide, you don't" is implicitly stating that your view on the subject is more worthwhile than mine,

Wrong. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

which obviously isn't true. But go ahead and bring it before ArbCom, see what they say.

I didn't accuse you of personal attacks. Yet. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may wish to bone up on some WP policies, such as WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks (esp.: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks") and WP:NPA#Be_aware_of_wikilawyering.

I don't need you to quote Wikipolicies to me. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And if your threat here constitutes a call for a ban or a block, also see WP:Civil#Examples. Pudge 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat. And if you have any problem with me, you can bring it to the arbcom yourself. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

-- is knowingly painting a false portrait of the man by including cherry-picked verifiable information.

How do you know it's a false portrait? That's your opinion, which is original research. No one is cherry-picking, I explicitly stated that if you can find verifiable information that contradicts his earlier statements you can include it. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the context of the discussion at hand, which was about the principle, not the specifics. Pudge 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no applicable principle here. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I neither stated nor implied we should include information that is original research, or is not verifiable.

You have not presented any verification that he didn't believe the statements in question. Therefore it is original research. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on several counts. First, the act of not verifying is not therefore, necessarily, original research.

If it is not verifiable, it cannot be included. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, we are discussing here not about specifics, but about principle,

I don't know what you're discussing, but it apparently isn't what I'm discussing. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

and I never suggested or implied in any way that non-verifiable information should be used.

You are arguing for removing verifiable information because of something that you know but is not verified. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that I did is simply false. What I was arguing for is the opposite: that if we know the verifiable information creates a false impression, then it should be excluded. Pudge 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of my assertion is false. It is not our job to decide whether verifiable information creates a false impression or not. If it's verifiable, it's fair game. There is no principle at stake here, not a Wikipedia one anyway. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I said we should eschew knowingly painting a false portait of the man. Look at the discussion; this portion of it is tangential to the original portion, and is about knowingly creating a false image. Here's a better example: let's say this were the Dick Durbin article, and we included a bunch of quotes saying he is pro-life (as he was when he first entered the House), ignoring the evidence that he has since become pro-choice. This would be, quite clearly, creating a false image. Absolutely, we should stick to what is verifiable, but just because it is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included, if we know that it creates a false image.

If there is disagreement over whether it creates a false image (and there is) then we should include all verifiable information on both sides of the issue. You haven't presented any verification for your views. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And if we know it creates a false image, and we don't have verifiable information for both sides, it is best to leave out what information we do have. Pudge 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know it creates a false image. That's your opinion. We as Wikipedia editors don't pass judgements on verifiable information. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In Lieberman's case, whether a false image is being created is far less clear, but it is important to keep the principle in mind.

This principle is not Wikipedia policy. Find me a quote that indicates this is Wikipedia policy. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No. You have it backward. You have to show me that what I said is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy does not contain everything. And I frankly find it incredible that anyone would argue against the notion of being wary of intentionally creating a false image. Isn't that ... obvious, that we should be so wary? Pudge 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth. Your constant assertions of a false image are completely irrelevant to this policy. --Ideogram 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's a reasonably strong question about whether his statements of 6 years ago represent his views today, then they should be handled with extra care, and perhaps not used (at least, not in a way that would make a reader think that do currently represent his views). Now, ideally, this would be somewhat of a moot point, as all historical quotes would be presented in a context that would not imply later agreement with the quotes, but in practice, that's easier said than done. Pudge 23:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can say "O'Reilly said of Lieberman in 2005"...but it doesn't belong in a discussion of his campaign endorsements.

Fair.

I think that I'll take up your offer to take all endorsements on both sides out. However, statements should be allowed. In other words, I don't get to say NOW endorsed Lamont, but I get to cite them and state their objections to JL, all verifiable from the cited press release/article of course. Similarly, you wouldn't get to say that Human Rights Watch endorsed Lieberman but you can quote their positive statement about him. You get to quote a couple of Democratic politicians saying nice things about JL, provided they said them in the last couple of months or that you state when they said them, but you don't get to say they endorsed him. But I also get to quote a couple of critics, even if they're anti-Lieberman blogs, if what they say is relevant to an issue in the article. Fair?-KP 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is a Lieberman page. I agree with Beth C. that it is fair game to list Lieberman's endorsements and put a link to the Lamont page where his endorsements are listed. OR we can drop the 2006 section entirely, put a link to that page, where both sets of endorsements can be listed. You can cite the NOW objection, so long as it is not put in the context of trying to show that Lieberman is anti-choice, when his voting record and ratings from abortion groups show otherwise. I do not think the use of anti-Lieberman blogs are fair game. I do not agree to that. Currently, there are no quotes by "a couple" of Democratic politicians saying nice things about him on the wiki page, so that's not an issue. Therefore, there is no reason to have "a couple" of quotes by critics, even if they're anti-Lieberman blogs.

I was saying, if we eliminate all endorsements, I was willing to allow you to post a couple of quotes from those you list saying nice things about him, if I could do the same with the other side. If you don't post the quotes, then I have no reason to counter them.

I, however, strongly disagree about NOW. Lieberman is officially pro-choice, but his credentials in that area are mixed. If they weren't, NOW wouldn't have repeatedly refused to endorse him even when he had no Democratic challenger. He did support allowing anti-abortion hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims. He has refused to invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause to filibuster Alito (once cloture was invoked, the confirmation was certain).

By the way, I'd have a hard time finding a citation to prove this and don't intend to put this on the page, but I have heard an audio file, since I began my research on Lieberman, of JL on Hannity's show, where Hannity says to Lieberman (these are approximations, not actual quotes), "I think

you'd have been there for Bush on the Alito nomination if he had really needed your vote." Lieberman responded, "That's something we'll have to talk about off the air."

Now, the more negative way that can be viewed I don't even need to state, but even the most positive spin I could put on it would be that JL was deferring to Hannity, not wanting to argue with him. Sorry, but if JL truly thought, as NOW, NARAL, and other Democratic interest groups interested in issues besides abortion, did, that Alito was an awful nominee, he should have stood up for his position on the air. So, assuming he didn't tell Hannity off the air that Hannity's statement was right, he either didn't feel strongly about Alito or is a political coward.

Again, I never used that statement and don't plan to. I don't know if I could find where the audio file of it exists, or if Hannity keeps transcipts of his radio show online that would allow me to find it. I'm pointing out that abortion rights supporters have reason to question JL's commitment to their cause and to attempt to make it appear otherwise is unfair.

If you don't plan to use that statement it is a little off-topic to bring it up here. Ideogram 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. LionO is acting like it's ridiculously misleading to say anything that might question JL's pro-choice credentials, including using NOW's objections to him on those grounds. Unless you believe I'm lying when I say I heard that personally, I'm using it on this page to show that there is plenty of reason to question his credentials on ths issue.-KP 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care if there is reason for you to question his credentials. The only topic that needs to be discussed here is verifiability of material you propose to include in the article. For instance, if you can find a statement from NOW that states their objections to him, you can include that. Ideogram 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to treat it as fact that he is as pro-choice as, say, John Kerry is. NOW does not trust him on issues of abortion rights. You may think they're incorrect to distrust him in that area. I think they're right. Either way, their objections should be noted, at which point the reader can decide and if he chooses, follow the link.

So, in short: two options -- (1) list Lieberman endorsements here, with a link to the Lamont page where his endorsements are listed or (2) drop the 2006 campaign section for the most part, just list the names of the candidates, with links to their wiki pages and a link to the wiki 2006 CT Campaign page, where all endorsement info would be listed.

Almost all pages of politicians running for election/re-election that I've seen include a section on the race. Hillary Clinton, while certainly controversial, is considered safe in her very blue state-- and while in CT most of the action is in a primary that will take place in a month (I don't think many people think Schlesinger is likely to win), in other states the real action will occur in November. You're right that references to the campaign outside the campaign section should be much more limited than they are. But beyond removing all endorsements (as it would be highly unbalanced to list only Lieberman endorsements) the campaign section is pretty much okay. I think you removed the Rasmussen poll, which needs to be reinstated; and perhaps upon close inspection I'll see something else I object to. But I'm willing to support the entire removal of endorsements of either candidate from the page, and am willing to consider a balanced significant shortening of the campaign section (e.g. the bear ad might be removed, but some content that JL might like might also be removed).

I also note that the Hilary Clinton article has a link to a more detailed one about her stands on issues, and it does include some criticism (some of which is unsourced!):

"While many women sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior, others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions by showing no interest in obtaining a divorce." I'd still say that overall the article is somewhat too friendly to her, and I say that despite the fact that I generally like her.

Note that even the page on the Dallas Cowboys themselves mentions their failures:

"Defensive coordinator Dave Campo was promoted to head coach, but he could only post three consecutive 5-11 seasons, with his fate likely being sealed by an opening day loss in 2002 to the expansion Houston Texans. Many fans and media were beginning to blame Owner Jones for the team's ills, noting that he refused to hire a strong coach, preferring to hire coaches who didn't want to be involved with personnel duties so that Jones himself could manage them."

Comparing sports teams to politicians compares apples to oranges (much less controversial, "endorsements" don't matter, etc.), but the point is you have to take the bad with the good. If I went to the pages for some teams with poor records, the article would likely (or should) include a lot of info on how they failed.

The point is, I think you're right about endorsements going. You had offered that, and I accept it, as long as it is on both sides (Hillary's page includes no endorsements of either her or any opponent, that I can find).-KP 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

LinoD

Does this guy work for the Lieberman campaign? Blah42 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a page for personal attacks. I'm sorry that you feel that you can come in here and post hypotheticals in the main article. You are posting after-the-fact, original research, which is not what Wiki is interested in. At this point, we've reverted to the consensus version three times. Either apply for mediation, or stop. LionO 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is not the conensus version. What I've added is backed up by reference. You are lying by saying that it's not backed up by references. Blah42 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say that the Senate was not in jeopardy during those years unless you have polling information. You are making the assumptions that x no of Democrats and x no of Republicans signifies whether a Senate is in jeopardy or not. This is an assumption. You need to provide polling information to make that claim. There can be 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans, but if polling information shows that 20 Democrats are in trouble, then the Senate is in jeopardy of changing hands. Assumptions are not facts. Even so, I don't think your statement belongs in this article. It's an unbiased portrayal of a Senator, not a Lamont ad.

There were a lot of people pissed at Liebermans disregard for his party in 2000. In 1960, Johnson was replaced by a DEMOCRAT. Only 1/3rd of Senators are up at a time, so I don't think 20 members of a party were ever in trouble in one election. Blah42 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god, you reverted me again. You seriously are arguing that having Johnson replaced by a DEMOCRAT when the Democrats had 64 Senators could have affected control of the Senate? WTF? Blah42 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 100 Senators in the Senate. Anywhere between 33 to 45 could be up at a time. You need to prove, through polling data, that the senate was not in jeopardy of changing hands. Wiki is not interested in assumptions. It is interested in verified information. If you claim that this is the case, then it should not be hard to prove with polling information.

I question the relevence of this information. What's the point? Are you tryin:g to pursuade readers that Lieberman made a bad decision? Should your statements be followed by statements by Al Gore supporting Lieberman's decisions? Isn't that all a bit much? Leave the facts, not the manipulations.

At this point you have changed the article four times and it has been reverted back. The onus of responsibility is on you to do one of the following:

1) apply for mediation 2) stop

continuing to edit the article to the way you like it, at this point, is a violation of Wiki policy.

LionO 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, only the Lieberman campaign gets to change the article 4 or more times without violating Wiki policy. Sorry that I ttried to insert some facts. Blah42 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Lieberman campaigned is not alligned with Wiki. The person who changes an article is the one who has the onus of responsibility. Wiki policy. You have made your say in disagreeing with the version that has been edited by many. Now you need to apply for mediation or stop. Your personal attacks (use of curse words, inability to keep civil discourse, lack of faith in my motives, personal attacks) throughout this page and the history page demonstrate that you do not understand how Wiki works. Mediators will not look kindly upon your behavior LionO 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, plenty of other people have agreed with me that you are reverting useful information. So sorry that you don't like facts being added to your Wiki page. Now you're trying to threaten me, when it is you that has gotten numerous previous complaints. So sad, well, you win, you can turn this page into Pravda. Thanks for denying useful information from appearing in a Wiki page. Blah42 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's only KD13060 - those are his comments. However, I direct you to Ideogram's comments, who arrived as mediation help. He agrees with me. But sorry to hear that you are distraught. Review Wiki guidelines before posting - I'm sure you have welcome information to add.

[Note: Blah posted my entire talk page here and I deleted it from this thread.] Blah, this is not the place to be posting my talk page. This page is to be a discussion of the Lieberman article, not an attack on me. Anyone who wants to look at the history of my talk page, as you did, is welcome to and the information is all there. You found it, didn't you? LionO 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that not only did you remove KD13060's comments from your talk page, you removed them from this page too. Blah42 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is appropriate to delete information from talk pages that is no longer current nor relevent. The arrival of Ideogram made some comments irrelevant. All the information is available in history pages for anybody to find, as you did. You will notice that others deleted comments from this page, too, that no longer contribute to the discussion of the main article. You can assume that the comments you are writing now will be edited off this page as well, since they bear no discussion of the main article. LionO 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try not to edit other people's comments. It is not productive. --Ideogram 00:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the talk page is getting to big, I'd suggest archiving rather than simply deleting old comments. Steve p 02:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They were relevant since they show that you are a hypocrite for claming I'm the one violating wiki policy. Blah42 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to assume good faith in all users. If you can't assume good faith, then you should apply for mediation. Ideogram arrived and assumes that I have good faith. Discussion is over. If you cannot assume good faith, you should apply for mediation or stop writing. This is a discussion about how best to present an unbiased, verified article -- not a discussion about me. LionO 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your threats of having me banned were not in good faith. Neither was your blind revision of facts with references. Of course it's about you, this whole talk page is about you. Blah42 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been informing you of Wiki policy. There is no debate here - I did not decide the policy. As I said before - you were the one revising - not me. The facts that you provided were irrelevant and based on faulty assumptions and original research, which Wiki is not interested in. Again: you have two choices - apply for mediation, or stop. You have crossed the line into personal attack, which - by Wiki policy - can get you banned. As well as the posting of obscenities (see history page) LionO 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

May I propose a compromise? It is a fact that many were upset with Lieberman for running for both positions. If that statement is included, along with a citation that links to a prominent article stating that position (say an editorial in the Hartford Courant), that would be best. There is no need to engage in specualtion as to why that position critical of Lieberman is correct. Instead of asserting why people were upset in the actual Wiki article and then engaging in a digression in order to explain that position, simply link to an article defending that position without violating the neutralitiy of Wiki.--Thud495 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider this - but in fairness, it should not be an after-the-fact article that is colored by the 2006 campaign. After all, the section is on his VP run. It should include an article from 2000 stating that people were upset. And, in all fairness, it should include Gore (or Brazil's) statement that he was fine with Lieberman's decision to run for both offices. LionO 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did link to such an article, and you removed it along with all my other stuff. You may attempt to appear reasonable here, but you removed everything I posted even though I provided references. Your actions speak far louder than your words. Blah42 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case. Everything is available in the history files. Regardless, you linked to an opinion editorial by Michael Moore and used that to make the claim "many feel that" when in fact the article represents Michael Moore. It was a misrepresentation of the source. LionO 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The LionO edit wars

He and I got into some major ones, and he outlasted me, despite that the day I decided to give up I was offered help (which I had requested) from a member's advocate. I was just too consumed by it.

He does like to remove anything critical of Lieberman, though, by criticizing the source.

I'm not going to get back into this. It was costing me my sanity.

This will likely be the one and only post I make regarding this. However, the DLC article itself says that the DLC wanted to move the party to the center. He cites one quote from the DLC that misrepresents it and Lieberman. I also note that he removed the questioning of the validity of Lieberman's voting record by Paul Bass in the Hartford Courant[18]. It violates WP:NPOV to use the voting record (which he looks liberal enough on) without the context.

He gets "credit" (for example) for voting against Alito. But he also helped break the Democratic filibuster that was the only way to stop Alito.

Also, he insisted that JL's endorsements be listed, but that opponents not be listed. Anyone want to consider the balance there?

If Bill Clinton's pro-JL statement is used, so should the New York Times' criticism.

He removed that in the Schiavo case, JL was acting against the wishes of Schiavo's legal guardian and that she was being kept artificially alive.

There's no reference that I can find anywhere to his statement that "We undermine the President at out nation's peril."

There are a zillion ways in which LionO messed up the page to be extremely biased in JL's favor. Anyone willing to clean it up is doing the world a favor.-KP 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, our mediator, Ideogram, found you to be pushing an anti-Lieberman agenda. Shortly afterwards, you disappeared. Welcome back. LionO 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay...I guess I'm going to participate in the discussion here some. Ideogram agreed to try to mediate. He wasn't the official mediator, and for all I know he had his own bias. And you even misstated what he said. He agreed with you on various issues we had. But at least while I was here he never accused me of pushing an anti-Lieberman agenda.

He strangely said that it was okay to post misleading facts (like attrbuting Gore/Lieberman ticket views to Lieberman) as long as they could be verified, and that contributed to my decision to leave. I know that if he accurately stated Wikipedia policy, that Wikipedia can't be trusted on any controversial issue.

I mean, you characterize the DLC one way, and yet the DLC Wikipedia page itself says, neutrally and factually, "Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the center to remain viable during the Reagan era."

I left (aka disappeared) because the fight was draining me; my level of stress over the page became more of an issue to me than your biased editing; and I still hope to greatly limit my involvement. I just wanted to encourage good people to make the page fairer, now that I see some are doing so. -KP 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you did not like that our mediator's decisions and that caused you to leave. However, I respect the decision that you made. Sometimes if something upsets you, it's best to take a break. LionO 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am taking up that task. --Stephenzhu 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, and good for you. Please note some of the points I mentioned that were wrongly removed. If you agree, those are some things you might wish to re-add. -KP 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I'm working on the many statments made in the issues section that lack citations. My first question is does this link: [19] seem appropriate as a citation to show "anger" in this sentence: "Lieberman has been praised by many for his stance on regulating the sales of violent video games, while others have been angered by this position."

My other request is that whomever added: "In March 2006, according to the The New Haven Register,[citation needed] when asked about the approach of the Catholic hospitals on contraceptives for rape victims, Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.[citation needed]" please provide a citation. I remember reading this in the Hartford Courant as well, if nobody steps up I'll look into it. Finally, the statements on the death penalty need to be cited as soon as possible, as I personally think they're a little shaky. As soon as this gets done, I'd like to nominate this article as a Good Article. Once this campaign is over, I believe this can be a Featured Article.--Thud495 13:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another statement that needs a citation is the statement saying that Lieberman inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. This is a true statement, but I haven't seen any proof on the subject, save for an episode of the G4 television program Game Makers (formerly Icons). --Noah A. 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Of course a primary source would be superior than a contempory source in making that particular assertion. Blah, while you did provide a source in support of that statement, you also made your own argument within the article itself. LionO was thus at least partially correct to revert your changes. In any case, I prefer the somewhat more concise and objective Yale Daily News in providing evidence for the assertion of signficant opposition to Lieberman's move. https://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=12744 Acceptable?

I suggest the following change:

In August 2000, the presumptive-Democratic nominee for president, Al Gore, tapped Lieberman to be his vice-presidential running mate. His selection marked the first Jewish candidate on a major party ticket. The announcement of Lieberman's selection showed an increase in support for Gore's campaign. [10] Like Democratic VP candidates Lyndon Johnsonin 1960, and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Lieberman's Senate term was also due to expire in this election cycle and he decided to stage a run to maintain that seat as well. Although some questionsed the strategy in having Lieberman run for both offices, the Gore/Lieberman campaign argued that it gave CT Residents more electoral power in upcoming years. https://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=12744

Interestingly, Lieberman later criticized Al Gore for adopting a populist theme during their 2000 campaign, and stated he had objected to Gore's "people vs. the powerful" message, believing it was not the best strategy for Democrats to use to win the election.[11]

LionO 21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you're agreeing to add something, but I think that if you mention Johnson 1960, and Bentsen 1988, it should be mentioned that Johnson was replaced by Democrat #64, and Bentsen was one of 55 Democratic Senators after that election, while Lieberman's race would have made the difference by itself. Blah42 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The article links to pages on Johnson and on Bentsen. That information, if it is important enough, can be found there. Presenting this information here would be irrelevent. The article that Thud found discusses this issue. LionO 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does reduce the relevance of mentioning Johnson and Bentsen, particularly the former. Also nowhere does it say that if Lieberman had become Vice President (obviously not much would have had to change in FL there), that the CT race would have made the difference in control of the Senate. Blah42 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The mentioning of Johnson and Bentsen is relevent because without it, the reader would think that the mentioning of Lieberman running for both races was the first time it happened in history. In fact, it's the third. The fact that the CT race would have made a difference is after-the-fact information and, frankly, speculative. One could argue that it would not have made a difference: Gore/Lieberman wins. Rowland appoints Republican. 51-49. Jeffords switches sides - 50-50, Lieberman as tie-breaker. We cannot include information about things that did not happen.

I suggest the following. You're going to need a source if you claim Gore said that it would help CT Residents have more electoral power. We came very very close to this race making a difference.

In August 2000, the presumptive-Democratic nominee for president, Al Gore, tapped Lieberman to be his vice-presidential running mate. His selection marked the first Jewish candidate on a major party ticket. The announcement of Lieberman's selection showed an increase in support for Gore's campaign. [10] Like Democratic VP candidates Lyndon Johnson in 1960, and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Lieberman's Senate term was also due to expire in this election cycle and he decided to stage a run to maintain that seat as well. Unlike those races, this Connecticut Senate race would have determined control of the Senate if Lieberman had been elected Vice President. Some questionsed the strategy in having Lieberman run for both offices. Lieberman's campaign argued that it gave CT Residents more electoral power in upcoming years. https://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=12744 Blah42 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the relevence of mentioning Johnson is lessened by adding the changes, it is still important in order to establish that Lieberman's decision was not without precedent. That the precedent was not exactly the same in terms of the makeup of the Senate is largely incidental and so covering it in the Wiki article may be unnecessary. However, I would have no objection to simply saying that had Lieberman won both races his Senate seat would have been chosen by a Republican governor. (Sorry, I can hardly keep up :p - I have no substantial problem with the last suggestion by Blah)--Thud495 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you should try to find a verifiable citation from someone stating that they questioned the strategy specifically because it threw control of the Senate into question. If you can't find such a citation I would say don't include it. In general it would be best to find a citation for "Some questioned the strategy" so that you can mention why they questioned it. --Ideogram 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From this article mentioned above: https://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=12744

Dated September 27th, 2000:

What will he say to his Democratic Senate colleagues if his seat -- now filled by a Republican Rowland appointee -- makes the difference between a 51-49 Republican majority and a 50-50 tie Lieberman could have broken as vice president?

Blah42 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a valid citation. We should try to work this statement into the article somehow. Let me suggest the following:

"In August 2000, the presumptive-Democratic nominee for president, Al Gore, tapped Lieberman to be his vice-presidential running mate. His selection marked the first Jewish candidate on a major party ticket. The announcement of Lieberman's selection showed an increase in support for Gore's campaign. [10] Like Democratic VP candidates Lyndon Johnson in 1960, and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Lieberman's Senate term was also due to expire in this election cycle and he decided to stage a run to maintain that seat as well. Some questioned the strategy of having Lieberman run for both offices, saying that it "threatens his party's chances of winning a Senate majority." Lieberman's campaign argued that it gave CT residents more electoral power in upcoming years. https://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=12744"

What do you all think? --Ideogram 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the above LionO 05:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start over

Please try not to edit the page during the discussion. Revert wars are not productive. If someone else edits, do not respond in kind.

Let's focus on proposed edits and try to reach consensus about them. At present the main point being discussed is whether to include the statement:

"Unlike those races, this Connecticut Senate race would have determined control of the Senate if Lieberman had been elected Vice President."

I agree that this statement needs verification. As long as a verifiable source said it, we can include it. Otherwise I would say it should not be included. --Ideogram 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Easily verified. I already cited this all before, but it got deleted anyways. There were 64 Democrats after the 1960 election. United_States_Senate_election,_1960 Johnson was replaced by a Democrat. William_Blakley Bentsen was one of 55 Democratic Senators after the 1988 election United_States_Senate_election,_1988 I think we all know that Joseph Lieberman almost became Vice President in 2000. He was one of 50 Senators elected in 2000 United_States_Senate_election,_2000 As the link above shows, Republican Governor Rowland would have gotten to name his replacement. Gore won Connecticut by 17 points, and so likely would have coat-tailed another Democrat in.

Again, there is nothing new here, I added this all before, and it all got removed.

Blah42 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is verifiable. As I have said before, you are trying to prove a hypothetical. CT Congressional Democrats were all set to change the laws and allow for a special election if Lieberman became VP (just at MA Cong. Dems were going to do the same in Mass if Kerry became president -- thought Romney threatened a veto there, too). Rowland threatened to veto it, but CT Dems may have had enough votes to override it. Who's to say that this wouldn't have happened? A moot issue. I am fine with the section in the block above that we all suggested. Nothing needs to be added to it. LionO 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike those races, this Connecticut Senate race would have determined control of the Senate if Lieberman had been elected Vice President." is a fact. You may not like this fact, and feel the need to remove it no matter what from the article, but it is a fact, and you are being 100% unreasonable. Blah42 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. Did you consider my proposed phrasing above? --Ideogram 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, but remember, this scenario was at most 269 Florida votes away from actually happening. Blah42 05:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as long as everyone agrees, we can put my proposed edit into the article and move on to the next controversial edit. --Ideogram 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Another cite for the Conn Senate rate in 2000. http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/060724ta_talk_hertzberg Stephenzhu 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

he seems pretty moderate

for a democrat--John Herbert Walker Bush Smith 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular Vote

The article claims Lieberman is "the first Jew to win the popular vote in a national election." But there is no such thing as a popular national vote in the U.S., and never has been. I don't mean to say this facetiously: it's an important, and very true, fact. Because of the electoral college system, a vote in Connecticut is not weighed the same as a vote in Texas, nor are the motives (let alone methods) for voting equivalent. Saying Lieberman won the national popular vote is like saying that the Red Sox in 2004 were the champions of the entire pro sports world in the U.S. There is no such thing. It's both false and misleading. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talk • contribs) )

I'm sorry, but that's bull. There is most definitely such a thing as "winning the popular vote." It's a phrase that numerous papers have used, and no one has any trouble understanding what it means: that the Gore-Lieberman ticket got a plurality among all the votes nationwide, which means that in most voting systems they would have been the winner, and even in most U.S. presidential elections they would be the winner. It may be true that in our particular system, the popular vote is not ultimately what determines the president, even though it usually matches the winner. But that hardly renders the concept meaningless. I think you're playing semantic word games because you don't want to admit the uncomfortable truth that the U.S.'s electoral college system is highly irregular. marbeh raglaim 13:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are, clearly, incorrect. Newspapers use it out of ignorance or laziness. What I said is verifiably true. There is no such thing as a meaningful "plurality among all the votes nationwide." You are simply wrong when you say 'in most voting systems they would have been the winner,' because when you change voting systems you change the behavior of the voters. You cannot know with any degree of certainty that there would not have been a 0.5% change in behavior of the voters had we actually had a popular vote. This is simply unknowable, and it is unreasonable to assert it as fact, as you have done here. I am not playing word games, I am stating what is, again, verifiable fact.

My own personal views have nothing to do with this; I couldn't care less about the irregularity of the U.S. system, but here we are talking about verifiable facts, and it is a verifiable fact that we cannot know, as you incorrectly stated, that Gore would have been the winner in a popular vote. The only way to know that would have been to have an actual popular vote. Pudge 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so wrong. But you know what? I don't really care. I am not going to get into a debate over something that really isn't crucial to the article. Maybe if there are other articles dealing more directly with this question, I'll go there. But for now, I'll concede the changes you made here. Until we meet again, bro. marbeh raglaim 07:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Everything I said is verifiably true. It is simply unreasonable to say that Gore would have won in 2000 if we'd had a popular vote, as this is impossible to know with any degree of certainty. Do you really think voting habits are not related to voting method: that all people vote exactly the same in an electoral system as opposed to direction election? This is obviously false (and I am an example, voting for Harry Browne in 1996, because I lived in MA and my vote wouldn't change anything). Some people simply don't vote when they live in a state like MA or TX; this phenomenon is well-known and understood. You simply cannot know that there would not be a swing of more than 0.5%, which was the difference between the two candidates.

And I didn't even get into the obvious fact that a popular vote election significantly changes how campaigns are run -- where the campaigning is done, what is said, even what positions are held -- which could cause a swing of several percentage points. So no, I am not wrong; you are, bro. Pudge 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You really can't let it go, can you? I told you, I'm letting you keep the article the way it is. Therefore, I see no point in debating the issue further here, and I'm not going to go along with your attempt to drag me down into the debate again. I'll just end by giving you a word of advice: maybe you'd find yourself in fewer arguments if you actually bothered to pay attention to what people are saying instead of attacking your own preferred watered-down version of the opposing points. See ya, buddy. marbeh raglaim 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, everything I said is verifiably true. The fact is, I debunked the few arguments you offered at the outset. The fact is, you offered nothing in response -- no facts, no arguments -- except "you are so wrong." The fact is, you are not paying attention to what I am saying while complaining that I am not paying attention to what you are saying, else you would see the clearly true and verifiable fact that it is impossible to know whether Gore would have won in 2000 had we changed the process by actually having a popular vote . The fact is, you keep responding even though you say you have nothing more to say. The fact is, if I can't let it go, then neither can you. *shrug* Pudge 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chip in here; even though it's rather pointless, but I couldn't let this go by, as it kind of bugs me. There most assuredly is such a thing as a "national popular vote" in a presidential election. It is the total of all presidential votes from all states in the United States. While it is true that the total of all votes cast across the country means nothing as far as choosing the president goes, there still is such a thing as a total of all votes cast across the country. That ought to be self evident. And if there is such a thing as a total of all votes cast across the country, then it is easy to tally up the votes cast across the country for any particular candidate or ticket. In 2000, the Democratic Gore-Lieberman ticket got more votes than any other ticet in that presidential election. Therefore, the Gore-Lieberman ticket won the popular vote. It might not have given the Gore-Lieberman ticket the presidency and vice presidency, and indeed it did not. But the Gore Lieberman ticket still won the popular vote. And since Lieberman is Jewish, and no other Jewish candidaye running for president or vice president had ever before won the popular vote, it is quite true to say that Lieberman was the first Jew to win the popular vote nationally in a presidential election. I don't mean to be pedantic here, but it just seemed like you were missing the point. Zarzamora 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this dispute still active? --Ideogram 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close this case. If you need to reopen it, leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alchemistoxford

Seems to have an axe to grind about "Death Penalty for Minors." Three times, Alchemistoxford has included material about the death penalty for minors that is opinionated "the reprehesible crime of...", "a policy that is now deemed to be reprehensible, barbaric and totally beyond the pale of a civilized society" ... yadda yadda. Additionally, he seems to overemphasize Lieberman's vote on the Death Penalty for Minors in serious cases by mentioning it in the opening section and also giving it its own subsection - apart from Capital Punishment - in the "Positions" section. I - and other editors - have removed his POV word choices and included one sentence about it under capital punishment. Since it has never been a signature issue for Lieberman, nor has it been an issue brought up by Lieberman or his opponents, nor was he in the minority in voting for it, it needs no more than a single sentence mention. Alchemistoxford - if different editors are ditching your stuff, the response is NOT to keep posting it, but to discuss it here. You need to achieve consensus to post again. LionO 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that 4 times. This "Death Penalty for Minors" is total bull. He also adds also sorts of Jewish references for Lieberman, and tries to leave impression that Lieberman has a dual loyalty. Yeah, we get it , Alchemistoxford, you're an anti-semite and a Lamont supporter. (see also his contribution to the Charles Schumer article, also regarding Lieberman) Doesn't Wikipedia have some mechanism for dealing with serial vandelizers? --24.44.44.45 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

personal life

I added some contents for the personal life of Lieberman, focusing on his two marriages and finance. I also added his political position on stock options, which has become a hot topic nowadays. --stephenzhu 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Content removed from lead for better placement elsewhere.

The lead of an article about Lieberman is the place to summarize the article about Lieberman, not to go into detail about another person. This text needs to be placed somewhere else in the article.

Coincidentally, Jackson in 1970 faced a primary challenge from liberal Democrats unhappy with a three-term senator's support for a controversial war, the same scenario that confronts Lieberman in 2006. Unlike "Scoop" Jackson, however, Lieberman has also been criticized for what is seen as conservatism on some domestic issues. [20]

Sandy 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Political Positions

I added/modified the following entries.

Abortions and Contraceptions

Lobbying

Stock Options

Israel

--Stephenzhu 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Undone the deletion of Israel. Since Lieberman is one of the staunchest supporter of Israel in Congress, I think highlighting his position on Israel is warranted.

--Stephenzhu 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a piece of it out again, because it wasn't sourced. Please review WP:BLP. Sandy 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Got the reference. --Stephenzhu 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Please remember WP:FN when adding references (ref after punctuation, with no spaces). Sandy 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of division on Domestic and Foreign Policy. It seems to me NAFTA is about free trade, which largely belongs to domestic/general business policy. Also, Homeland Security also should belong to domestic policy. --Stephenzhu 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole Table of Contents is out of control, and should be shortened. Sandy 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose to alphabetize the topics in domestic and foreign policy. I will move free trade/homeland to domestic. --Stephenzhu 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not yet - that doesn't solve the "out of control" table of contents. Somehow, it has to be shortened. LionO 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Word Count of Lieberman Wiki page

don't know if you guys notice, Lieberman obviously has the longest wiki page of all US senators, past and present.

--Stephenzhu 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is well within overall and prose size recommendations, and still has room to grow. Sandy 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

rephrase, this page is shorter than Kerry's wiki page. --Stephenzhu 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Please read and understand WP:BLP. Unsourced material as described there can be removed, not subject to 3RR. Sandy 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Please read WP:QUOTE. The entire section of quotes needs to be removed and placed where it belongs. Sandy 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenzhu (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 July 2006

Someone moved quotes to WikiQuote, but there is a note there that they need cleanup (they probably need referencing as well). Sandy 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User Stephenzhu

I left a talk message for you, but you don't seem to have seen it. Please provide edit summaries to assist other editors in understanding your contributions. Thank you, Sandy 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. --17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

References

A note about the correct style for references and footnotes, after the punctuation, with no space. Sandy 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman's internationalist foreign policy?

Lieberman's foreign policy is definitely not internalionalist (in the conventional sense of that word), so I took the liberty of changing the phrase to refer to Lieberman's "hawkish foreign policy." After all, he was, and continued to be, a firm supporter of the war in Iraq. If there are any doubts, please refer to internationalism (politics).

--WorldWide Update 09:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Watch for vandalism

We have to really be careful about the vandalism on this page. While many people have been good to revert to edits before vandalism occurred, the vandalism is so rampant that reverting to a previous edit doesn't always help. After one editor reverted to a previous edit due to Alchemistoxford's vandalism, the previous edit had vandalism too -- it said Lieberman sufferred from erectile disfunction. Just a head's up to be careful: Lieberman is running for reelection, and it seems that some who are not supporting him find that the best way to show their politics is by vandalizing his wikipedia site. LionO 16:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It's hard to tell how much of what is here is actually vandalism and slander. I don't know Lieberman's politics and positions well enough to judge, but someone needs to go through everything here very carefully, since many of the recent additions don't say what the editor claims the references say. We may also need to get an admin's attention to the ongoing vandalism here, particularly in light of the importance of WP:BLP. Sandy 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Liono, please give reasons why you remove some of the sentences in the Israel and Geneva Convention Sections. All the sentences I put in are from creditable sources, such as the political contributions and toture memo connection disblief. --Stephenzhu 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the updates you made to the Israel and Geneva Convention sections. The Geneva Convention update, previously, was misleading prior to it. This is a good consensus. I have a feeling I may have misread the Israel section before deleting it. LionO 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Lieberman voted no on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage." "Lieberman is a champion of stock options."

This article is full of statements more than favorable to Joe Lieberman. Doesn't he oppose gay marriage? The second quote above is subjectively written and rather misleading. His support of "stock options" isn't an issue--it's his support of lower taxes for stock options. In addition, the Social Security Privatization section is almost entirely quoted from his website. I'm adding an NPOV tag. Smedley Hirkum 06:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to edit according to WP:BLP; unsubstantiated innuendo and unreferenced negative criticism should be aggressively removed from talk pages and articles. Since I'm not a Lieberman supporter, I will go through the article later today and NPOV it, hopefully to your standards. Please remember to assume good faith with respect to other editor's contributions. Sandy 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited my comment to remove my mistaken statements and to clarify my position. Smedley Hirkum 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Smedley Hirkum's criticism above, does anyone have any references to Lieberman's positions on gay marriage? It is a stretch for him/her to get from "voted no on ban of same-sex marriage" to "oppose gay marriage". I don't know Lieberman's position; can someone provide references? I added some cite tags: someone else should go through and address Smedley's questions, since I don't know Lieberman's voting record. We can't remove the NPOV tag until/unless someone addresses Smedley's claims. If Smedley is incorrect on Lieberman's positions, then those statements should be removed from the talk page per WP:BLP. Sandy

Lieberman voted against Bush's medicare plan. [21]

Lieberman is personally opposed to gay marriage, but supports state's rights to permit gay unions and also opposes constututional bans of gay marriage. He believes that gay couples should have the same rights and benefits as straight couples. [22] [23]

Thanks for looking into this Sandy. But my problem isn't simply with these issues--I'm not sure if I'm correct or incorrect about them. However, the article seems to leave out important controversial stands Joe Lieberman took--such as voting for the Bush's energy bill or harshly criticizing Bill Clinton on the senate floor. In my opinion, the article as a whole paints Lieberman as more liberal than he is. If I have time, I'll go through this tonight. 4.43.97.227 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)(—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley Hirkum (talk • contribs) )

Lieberman did not vote for Bush's energy bill. Lieberman's stance against Monica/Bill is already in the article. LionO 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, he did vote for Bush's energy bill. Simple Googling will confirm this. A summary of complaints against Liebmerman can be seen here. [24]4.43.97.227 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)(—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley Hirkum (talk • contribs) )

I just wanted to say that I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is intentionally adding pro-Lieberman POV. This article is getting hit with so much pro-Lamont vandalism that it is just hard to keep up with the work needed. Did anyone add in the refs given above ? Sandy 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry- I shouldn't have implied that anybody was intentionally adding Pro Lieberman POV. However, I think this article is very kind to Lieberman and leaves no room for what his numerous critics are saying. The biggest story in Joe Lieberman's life right now is his critics; we can't just ignore this. We should inform readers why Lieberman is in the news. This is why we need a Criticism section. Smedley Hirkum 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any evidence of a pro-Lieberman POV either. The pro-Lamont spin however ... jeepers. LionO 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to include a "Criticism" section, with criticisms of the senator as well as supporters' responses to those criticisms. Smedley Hirkum 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LionO, Why?

I am wondering what LionO's mission is on this page. LionO is removing all the unfavorable citations off the page to prevent the readers to see the other side of the debate, often one click away. I don't think putting a critical citation is anything suspect, as long as the text is NPOV. Also, LionO is taking a very deferential tone to Lieberman's position and try to spin it. Removing vandalism is one thing, plaster it with blue paint is another.

Stephenzhu, this comment does not strike me as in the interest of the Wiki policy to assume good faith. I have not deleted every anti-Lieberman article, but I have deleted the one that you are trying to use because it is misplaced and violates NPOV. See below. LionO 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You did delete the citation to the New York Times editorial, which you call anti-lieberman. I don't think that Wiki policy disallow citation, remember, it is citation to include POV sources. Readers can click on the POV source and form their opinion. We need to cite both sides if possible. --20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I have deleted that citation. I did not delete "all anti-Lieberman" citations, as you have suggested. Wiki does have a hierarchy of sources - opinion articles are not as strong as speeches, a person's own words and unbiased newspaper articles. The anti-Lieberman article is not the appropriate source to use in a biographical section. These are facts that are being reported. There is no reason to cite "both" sides in a biographical overview -- there shouldn't be more than one side on a non-controversial issue. Furthermore, the source you've used is problematic. The source, clearly biased against Lieberman, says that he divorced her due to religious reasons, but does not indicate from where the writer is able to base that claim. Whether or not it is true, it is a sloppily written source. LionO 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, we don't really know where he got the source on the quotation. Maybe it is in the divorce paper. Or maybe it is in his book (so, please read it again). However, as long as he quoted it, we should put it in good faith. The New Yorker article is as strong as a biographical sketch which is done by an independent and renowned journalist. --Stephenzhu 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe it is in the divorce paper. Or maybe it is in his book " ????? Well then why not use the original source? Why use a source in which an unsourced quote is couched in anti-Lieberman diatribe? We do not have to adopt an anti-Lieberman article as a source and [assume good faith]. This is a columnist who is writing to sway a person's viewpoint. That is different than a newspaper article that would not appear in the editorial pages. Those, presumably, are not designed to sway viewpoints. Use original sources whenever possible. With In Praise of Public Life, I have offered an original source. LionO

20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I don't understand: is your point to verify the reason behind the divorce or to insist upon the use of an anti-Lieberman source as the source to prove the reason behind the divorce? If it's the latter, that's an NPOV problem. If it's the former, then there should be no issue in using primary sources. LionO 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am taken back by the so called "anti-Lieberman article" notation. Why not you assume good faith on the New Yorker article which is written by a renowned journalist, which probably check his own source more diligently than anybody on this page? I am not saying you cannot use Praise of Public Life, which is obvious a propaganda piece used to sway viewpoints of potential voters. I am saying if you can use that piece, I can use New Yorker article as another piece. --Stephenzhu 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I think that a column that tries to argue that Lieberman has been misguided (and in passing that Lieberman's reason for divorce was unacceptable) is propaganda. In Praise of Public Life is a memoir and an explanation of Lieberman's positions. It is no different than quoting from one of Lieberman's speeches. To suggest than a column is more "accurrate" than In Praise of Public Life because the latter is used "to sway viewpoints of potentional voters" is considered original research which Wiki does not allow. LionO 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never disputed that you can use the autobiographical piece you are going to cite, I am only saying if you can cite Lieberman's own speech, why cannot I cite a piece which is critical of Lieberman's position. Or shall we say any piece that is critical or favorable to lieberman cannot get in? We do need some journalism NPOV nazi here to police if that is the way you want. --Stephenzhu 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is not appropriate. If a pro-Lieberman columnist's article were posted then, yes, an anti-Lieberman columnist's article should be posted. A politician's speech is not the same as a pro-subject column. The former is a primary source. The latter is a SPIN on the words of a politician. For example, if you say "Apples are a great fruit." I can write, Stephenzhu wrote, "Apples are a great fruit" and cite that speech. But if I were to cite an anti-Stephenzhu column as "proof" of the quote, one that said "When Stephenzhu said, 'Apples are a great fruit' he showed that he was out of touch with the voters because voters don't care about apples", that's not acceptable. There's a dual motive in using the second source. I may be, yes, showing that you said "Apples are a great fruit" but the reader can only discover it by hearing the columnist's opionion. Likewise, it would be wrong to quote a column that says, "Stephenzhu said that 'Apples are a great fruit' and this shows how amazing Stephenzhu is because anybody who likes apples is cool." That's a problem, too. Once again, the quote is removed from its original source.

I'm concerned why you are calling people nazis in this discussion. LionO 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Say Judy Miller quoted an unnamed Pentagon source saying "There is the Yellow Cake". Judy Miller's article as a whole is a secondary source but her Pentagon source is a primary source. Even though I cannot

cite her Pentagon source since I don't know their names, but I can cite Judy Miller's article even though Judy Miller is serving some unkown interest which I am not privy of. I cite Judy Miller because I want to get that Primary source which I am unable to cite due to circumstances. BTW: reread my sentences, have some sense of humor like the soup nazi--Stephenzhu 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If Judy Miller is quoting someone she interviewed - that interview is a primary source. If Judy Miller is quoting someone who quoted someone, then that's a secondary source. Look, I'm not saying you can't ever quote a secondary source. Sometimes it is necessary. For example if you were to write something like "There have been many pro-Lieberman columns and there have been many anti-Lieberman columns in the New Yorker", you'd cite examples - sure. Or in the case of the Judy Miller hypothetical example, that's as close as you can get to a primary source - there's no other option there. However, in this instance, we can get closer to the original source - we have primary sources available. There is no reason for the secondary source. LionO 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Say I want to cite a single sentence quote (not an full-length interview) "There is the Yellow Cake" which only appears in Judy's article. The only way to do that is to cite Judy. Even though people can say Judy's article is pro-administration, to get that quote in, there is not other way but to cite the whole thing. --Stephenzhu 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

get that primary source

Your Judy Miller analogy is not appropriate. We have the primary sources to use as proof in the personal life section. We don't need secondary sources to prove it. Primary sources are available. Why would we want to use the Herzberg source? LionO 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

After entertaining my Judy Miller hypo, you bailed out. I do think this hypo is legit. There is a single unsource quote which cannot be properly cited without citing the New Yorker article, which is a secondary source. --Stephenzhu 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to just cut and paste what I wrote before: If Judy Miller is quoting someone she interviewed - that interview is a primary source. If Judy Miller is quoting someone who quoted someone, then that's a secondary source. Look, I'm not saying you can't ever quote a secondary source. Sometimes it is necessary. For example if you were to write something like "There have been many pro-Lieberman columns and there have been many anti-Lieberman columns in the New Yorker", you'd cite examples - sure. Or in the case of the Judy Miller hypothetical example, that's as close as you can get to a primary source - there's no other option there. However, in this instance, we can get closer to the original source - we have primary sources available. There is no reason for the secondary source.

It doesn't matter if it's a primary source or a secondary source. Lieberman's memoir will obviously be favorable to Lieberman. Why not balance that out with a critical article? 4.43.97.227 15:29, 2 August 2006 (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley Hirkum (talk • contribs) ) (UTC)

Lieberman's Divorce

User StephenZhu wants to use this article: [25] as support for Lieberman and his first wife divorcing due to religious reasons. The article is clearly an anti-Lieberman article that in my mind violates NPOV. The bias of the article does not seem to warrant its use in the personal life section, especially when we are able to quote Lieberman's own words from In Praise of Public Life, in which he gives the reason for his divorce. I'm not saying you can't say that he divorced his wife due to religious differences (in fact, I think he even suggests as such in In Praise of Public Life, but I haven't had time to check). I am saying, however, that the anti-Lieberman source is not an appropriate source to use in this instance. LionO 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the New Yorker Article again. The regligious differnces is quoted... I wonder where the source is from and I am obviously not obliged to find the original source. I think the quotation makes the difference. Also if you can cite the autobiography which is obviously NPOV, why I cannot cite New Yorker Article with a quotation mark?! --Stephenzhu 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. Just because something is quoted, it doesn't make it a good source. The New Yorker article does not give any explanation where the quote came from, making the source suspect. In Praise of Public Life is a better source because it is easily verifiable; it is a primary source -- which Wiki considers a higher source than a secondary source, which is the case with the opinionated anti-Lieberman article. It's like if I were to use your words to describe you, versus quoting your words and then offering an interpretation of them, without saying where the quote came from. The first is better proof because we know where the quote came from. The second would be manipulative: there's no clear location for where the quote came from; furthermore it is couched in a source that makes the quote seem negative. Use original words and then let the reader decide. In all fairness, we would find Betty Haas's words in addition to Lieberman's. That's presenting "both sides." The New Yorker opinion article is not a "side." LionO 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hendrik Hertzberg didn't write the article to be published in an academic journal. Of course he didn't put every citation up like a wiki article, which I think excessive sometimes. But that doesn't make the

source suspect. In an autobiography, anyone will put their own divorce in a positive light. Citing "religious differences" after 16 years doesn't stike me as a good enough reason to be put int one's own autobiography by itself. If you can find Betty Haas's word, that will be great. If not, why not cite a quoted remarks from New Yorker? --Stephenzhu 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - I am fine with your removal of divorce reason. I think "In 1981, the couple divorced" is appropriate and can be left at that. LionO 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it to left it as that way. I want a vigorous discussion and put the concensus back in. --Stephenzhu 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, although I think the current version works LionO 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another source, New York, which also cite religious differences as a reason. Ref [26]

He was not very observant in 1965 when he married his first wife, Betty Haas, a Reform Jew. (As their daughter, Rebecca, puts it, "My mom came from the kind of Reform family who grew up with a Christmas tree.") The couple met while interning in Connecticut senator Abe Ribicoff's office; she went on to become a psychiatric social worker. "We kept a kosher home, so my parents could visit us," Lieberman says. "I still wasn't observing the Sabbath. Then, in 1967, my grandmother died." Lieberman's maternal grandmother, Minnie Manger, was a deeply religious immigrant and a strong influence. "When she died, it's trite to say, I felt the torch had been passed," Lieberman says. "I had an obligation to carry on the religious tradition."

Lieberman's renewed interest in burrowing deeper into his faith was one of the wedges that pushed him and Betty apart -- they divorced in 1981. As Lieberman became increasingly involved in politics, she resented the public life and his busy work-plus-temple schedule. "They argued," Rebecca says. "It wasn't surprising to me when they got divorced." Matt agrees. "I felt as a kid that the divorce was the right thing," he says, "because the marriage wasn't working." Lieberman himself simply says the couple grew apart. "One of the differences we had was in levels of religious observance," he says. "But I'm convinced if that was the only difference, we wouldn't have gotten divorced."

--Stephenzhu 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This source is acceptable, since it clearly quotes where and when the quotes were made, unlike the anti-Lieberman opinion column that was first used. I have no problem with using this source as proof. There is no longer a reason to use the anti-Lieberman source as proof, since this source is of a higher quality. Again, the issue was never any objection to revealing the reason behind the divorce; it was an objection to using a weak anti-Lieberman column as the source - it was poor scholarship on the columnist's part and would be poor scholarship on Wiki's part to use that source. LionO 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are not disputing the accuracy of the original phrase, but only disputing of the inclusion of the citation. I think it is proper to include both citation (New York and New Yorker) since both sources coorborate each other and the New Yorker article contained an unnamed quoted source. --Stephenzhu 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The source in the NewYorkMetro IS coororated because Lieberman gives the reason for the divorce, and then it is coorborated by all others interviewed in that section. Thus, within the article it is coorborated. Furthermore, unlike the anti-Lieberman column, whe know who, where and when something was said. The NewYorkMetro article does not need the anti-Lieberman column for its quotes to be coorborated. However, the anti-Lieberman column needs the NewYorkMetro article for it's quote to be verified. The NewYorkMetro article stands alone - it is a far better piece of journalism. There is no reason why an anti-Lieberman column needs to be included here. The NewYorkMetro source is the only source that needs to be used, unless you want to also use my quote from In Praise of Public Life, which presents a different reason for the divorce. LionO 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the big fear on putting a citation up. What is the fuss with the "anti-Lieberman" tag? Who is the authority in distributing this big tag? This tag is so radioactive that you cannot even put a citation up? why? I never read the book so I personally won't put that quote from the book up but any other editor who read the book can put it up if they choose to. I believe all citation is legit as long as it present a souce. New Yorker provided a unnamed quoted source and it is quite legit to me.

--Stephenzhu 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hertzberg is very clear that he is anti-Lieberman. You may not have read In Praise of Public Life but the quote can be verified by going to In Praise of Public Life. The quote cannot be verified by going to the Herzberg article. LionO 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will write the reason this way.

Both the New York Magazine and the New Yorker report that one of the reasons for the divorce is their different level of religious observance. [27][28] --Stephenzhu 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable. There is no reason to put up an anti-Lieberman source that mentions an unverified quote in passing UNLESS it is your real reason to link to an anti-Lieberman source. The New York Magazine is sufficient. LionO 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why can you use a lieberman autobiography + lieberman speech while I cannot put a sigle citation up for the reader to explore. It is not a matter of NPOV any more since the text is NPOV. Only the citation's NPOV is disputed. --21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No - you are not understanding the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. In Praise of Public Life is a primary source. It is Lieberman's own words. The New York Metro article is a primary source in that it contains an interview with Lieberman and his family, all of whose quotes can be coorborated and coorborate each other, since we know who, what, when and where things were said. The Hertzberg column is a secondary source. He did not interview Lieberman. He is using the Lieberman quote to create an argument than Lieberman is out of touch with the voters. However, Herzberg did not say where the quote came from. The source cannot stand on itself. Use sources that can stand on itself. It sounds like you want to include the Herzberg source not because it explains why the divorce happens (after all - if that was the reason, the New York Metro source would be fine), but to link to a source that says that Liebeman is out of touch and his divorce is one further example of how he's a hypocrite. Use primary sources. There is absolutely no reason to use a secondary, opinionated source here. You have achieved consensus with the New York Metro Source. You may use that. You have not achieved consensus with the Herzberg source. You cannot use that. File for mediation if you still think you have a case. 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) LionO 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that the New Yorker is not a primary source. On the contrary, since the article reads like the following.

(He later had the gall to cite differing “levels of religious observance” as the only specific reason he was willing to give for the divorce.)

Since there is a quote, we can infer that that should be considered a primary source. If that sentence is not quoted, the New Yorker article should be considered as a secondary source. The quotation mark makes all the difference. The source of that quote is another matter. It is a legit question to ask about where that quote comes from. Since the outlets such as New Yorker meticulously check their sources, there is no reason to doubt that Lieberman actually spoke those words. In conclusion, the New Yorker piece is primary source which is coorborated by another primary source. --Stephenzhu 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Just because something contains a quote (albeit an unsourced quote at that) doesn'tmake it a primary source. Perhaps you should read up on primary source and secondary source. LionO 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is the quotation a primary source or secondary source? The New Yorker piece and New York piece as a whole is obviously secondary sources. But the quoted conversations contained in those articles are definitely primary sources. Please read them again. --Stephenzhu 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Herzberg column is certainly not a primary source, STephenzhu. Your quote from the article proves that. The New York Metro column consists of an interview that took place at the time it was written -- that interview is a primary source. Furthermore, the column is not trying to "spin" those words. It is relaying them. See primary source and secondary source. Also see my discussion above in "LionO, why?" - I explain the difference between a primary source and a secondary source using you and apples (!) as an example. LionO 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the New York Article as a whole a primary source? I am afraid not. Only the quoted conversations are primary sources. --Stephenzhu 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is correct -- the New York Metro as a whole is not a primary source. However, the interview IS a primary source because the journalist interviewed Lieberman and his family and is reporting their quotes. We know where and when it took place. Herzberg did not interview Lieberman. He is (we presume) quoting it from somewhere else, although he does not tell us where. It is a secondary source, and an opinionated one at that. LionO 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But the quote “levels of religious observance”, which sort functions like a mini-interview, is a primary source. To cite this primary source, there is no way but to cite the New Yorker article. --Stephenzhu 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote "levels of religious observance" was said during an interview with Meryl Gordon, the interviewer in the New York Metro article. That was where and when it was said. The New York Metro article contains primary source information and should be the source used. The quote "levels of religious observance" may appear in the Herzberg article, but he is getting it from the New York Metro article. He never heard Joe say it, Joe never said it to him, but Herzberg read the quote in the New York Metro article and used it. Thus, Herzberg's article is a secondary source. The source for the quote that wiki should use is the New York Metro article. That's the first use of the quote. And it was made in an intervew. LionO 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right that the quote first appears in the New York Magazine article. That is an inference, not a fact. --Stephenzhu 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. New Yorker Magazine article came out on November 18, 2002. Herzberg article came out on July 17, 2006. You do the math. LionO 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing this could be an correct inference. Also, I don't think the current way of citing of lieberman book is correct. It needs to be fixed. --Stephenzhu 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an inference. It's a fact. The NY Metro magazine came first. Lieberman was interviewed for that magazine. He said "levels of religious difference" for that magazine. Those are facts. Herzberg did not interview Lieberman for his article. That's a fact.

I agree about the citation for In Praise of Public Life -- I'm not sure how to do it. Probably a footnote -- what's the code? LionO 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

check cite. use ref element [29] --Stephenzhu 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New Yorker Article by Hendrik Hertzberg

It has been called an "anti-Lieberman" article.[30]I concede that the article is critical of Lieberman but I challenge anyone to find a specific anti-Lieberman reference. Compare that to a Anti-Bush article or a Anti-Castro article. I find the Hertzberg is filled with facts and less with emotion and rhetorics. --Stephenzhu 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It is critical of Lieberman. It is certainly is not supportive of Joe in any way. It suggests that Joe is a hypocrite and doesn't get it and has loyalties to himself over anybody else. That's called an anti-Lieberman source. What is your definition of an anti-Lieberman source? What - the columnist has to say "Lieberman is the devil." This is a source that is very critical of Lieberman. It has no business being used as "proof." LionO 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Joe a hypocrite? Reader can make their own mind. The article provided indisputable facts to help the reader to make their own decision? You are right in saying the article is very critical of Lieberman but that doen't make it unsuitable for quoting as a citation. --Stephenzhu 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've revealed yourself: your purpose in using that source is for the reader to question whether or not Joe is a hypocrite. That question SHOULD NOT EVEN COME UP when trying to source the quote here. You seem to be trying to use the article for a purpose other than verifying the quote. You not only want to verify the quote, but you want to do so by making the reader question if Joe is a hypocrite. That's not what Wiki is about. Leave that for the blogs. LionO 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some questions we are not allowed to ask ourselfs? "Is he a loyal democrat?" "Is he a hypocrite?" People have these questions when they are visiting the wiki pages and hoping to find answers of their

own. Providing NPOV facts together with citations is the job of the wiki pages. I am not aware of any bar that exists. The New Yorker article contains a primary source/quotation which is coorborated by another article and it should be cited. --Stephenzhu 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the role of a source nor is it the role of Wiki. Think of this as a paper you would write for school. If you were to write, "Shakespeare once wrote, 'All the world's a stage'", you would quote his play, As You Like It. You would not, instead, quote a columnists argument who writes "Shakespeare wrote, 'All the world's a stage,' and thus this proves that he is the worst writer ever because the world is not a stage at all." You go to the original source whenever possible. It is possible here.

Furthermore, the purpose of a source is NOT to make peopl ask if Lieberman is a loyal Democrat or if he is a hypocrite or whatever. It's to prove where, when, and by whom a quote was made. Nothing else. LionO 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the purpose of the article is to help the reader to solve whatever question they may have before visiting the page. Spin the article in a positive or negative light doesn't really help the reader

reaching their own decisions. I am afraid your effort in the page has been helping paint a more positive tone on Lieberman's record. --Stephenzhu 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an article should not be spun one way or the other. That is why we should use legitimate sources that are not opinionated. By saying that I am editing as a Lieberman apologist, you show that you do not assume good faith when talking with me. You must or file for mediation. I have been trying to stop the pro-Lamont spin without turing the article into a pro-Lieberman article. It should be encyclopedic. Sally has noticed that the pro-Lamont spin runs throughout this article and has been doing very good work trying to stop it as well. LionO 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disgree. I think the article was in good shape and now is shabbles by successive editing which putting a positive light on Lieberman's record. Even citation which calls in question about Lieberman are banned frome the wiki. This is deplorable. --Stephenzhu 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is better than it was. It was SOOOOO pro-Lamont about month ago. All editors have to follow wiki policy. LionO 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lamont? I don't even know who Lamont is... Is he a loyal democrat? Is he a hypocrite? Who cares? This page is a Lieberman page, we need to focus on Lieberman. Who is he and what did he do, What is he thinking? Just honesting reporting Lieberman cannot be considered pro-anything. --Stephenzhu 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't know who Lamont is??? Should you be editing the Lieberman article as much as you have been, if you haven't read the article to begin with? LionO 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point, as an editor of Lieberman wiki page, you shouldn't be thinking who Lamont is. Why care about Lamont when you are editing Lieberman wiki page. To really achieve the neutrality, you should forget who Lamont is, what Lamont is doing, What the latest attach ad is saying. Focusing on the facts, hard cold facts. --Stephenzhu 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I am all for taking down the section that discusses Lamont's endorsements and his positions. I never thought it should be here to begin with. Additionally, I am for taking down all references to ads that Lamont is running. Ok with that? LionO 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm trying to be neutral and just get this article to conform with WP:BLP. Can anyone summarize in a few short sentences what is going on about his personal life and divorce? (Lot to read above.) Isn't New Yorker more or less an opinion magazine, rather than hard news, as in Hartford Courant or New York Times? Have the refs been added and the text adjusted to NPOV the article? If so, the tag should be removed. Sandy 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You got it. Stephenzhu wants to use Herzberg's opinion column from the New Yorker as proof that a quote was said. I have argued that we HAVE the original (primary) source available of the quote in question and there is no reason to use Herzberg's anti-Lieberman column to prove that the quote exists. LionO 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote contained in the New Yorker article is not mentioned in the New York Magazine article. The orginal quote is “levels of religious observance”.[31] The gist of it is coorborated in the New York Magazine article. [32] I am trying to reach a concensus on how to include the reference satisfactorily. --Stephenzhu 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: whenever possible, use an original, unbiased source. The New York Magazine contains the quote:

"One of the differences we had was in levels of religious observance," [Lieberman] says. We know who said the quote, to whom the quote was said, where it was said, and when it was said. It is a primary source - an interview. The interviewer does not try to tell us whether Lieberman is right or wrong.

However, in Herzberg's New Yorker article, we only get:

He later had the gall to cite differing “levels of religious observance” as the only specific reason he was willing to give for the divorce

We know who said it (Lieberman), but we don't know to whom it was said, where it was said, or when it was said. Furthermore, the columnist tries to spin the quote to show that Lieberman is a hypocrite. It is a secondary source, and a biased one at that.

The New York Magazine source is acceptable proof. The New Yorker Herzberg article is not as good a source and its inclusion as "proof" of the quote over the NY Magazine quote or along side the NY Magazine quote implies that even though it doesn't verify the quote as well as the NY Magazine, it's still worth reading - which is an NPOV problem, because you want people to read it to dislike Lieberman. That's not acceptable. LionO 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You infered that I want people to dislike Lieberman which is not in good faith which You started to accuse me of. Anyway, I suspect the fact that the New York Magainze article has a favorable tune to Lieberman weigh in your considerations. Consider, its title is "You Go, Joe", while the New Yorker article is called "No Mojo", which I found more humorous and imaginative. --Stephenzhu 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

After the newest editing, now it has become a mumbojumbo. I recommed you to write up your own version using your book source instead of mangling my sentences.

citing different the demands of public life and Lieberman's busy schedule and different levels of religious observation.

--Stephenzhu 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the NY Metro article gives all three reasons

Lieberman's renewed interest in burrowing deeper into his faith was one of the wedges that pushed him and Betty apart -- they divorced in 1981. As Lieberman became increasingly involved in politics, she resented the public life and his busy work-plus-temple schedule. "They argued," Rebecca says. "It wasn't surprising to me when they got divorced." Matt agrees. "I felt as a kid that the divorce was the right thing," he says, "because the marriage wasn't working." Lieberman himself simply says the couple grew apart. "One of the differences we had was in levels of religious observance," he says. "But I'm convinced if that was the only difference, we wouldn't have gotten divorced." http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/n_7996/index1.html

Lieberman says that religion was not the primary reason for the divorce. I agree that in Praise of Public Life belongs as a source too. Frankly, I think we should just say "In 1981, Lieberman and Betty Haas divorced" and leave it at that. I am fine with that. I will add a footnote to Lieberman's book, however.

there seems only two reasons. work-plus-temple, everybody works and every politician has a public life and it doesn't seems to be a specific reason to me. If you read the paragraph, you can see the only specific reason cited is the "temple". --Stephenzhu 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's not your role to decide what's a good reason or not. That consitutes original research. The Wiki is not interested in what you have to think. The interview in the NY Metro gives three reasons:

1) religious observance - but, as Lieberman says it was not the only reason for divorce 2) public life 3) busy schedules

1. 2 and #3 are not given as Lieberman's words in IN Praise of Public Life: (p 62) "There was no single reason our marriage failed. Some of it had to do with the different directions in which our personalities and careers developed. Some of it was related to the fact that I had become much more religiously observant than I was when we met and married. And there is no doubt that some of it was caused by the demands my political career put on our private life." LionO 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

first, I didn't say I am going to put my thoughts in the article. Second, isn't #2 and #3 sort of the same. Also, I suppose his life become more public after his venture as AG for Conn, now a US Senator. His

schedule is no doubt busier running a Senate compaign. That doesn't seem to hold water. Or Does it? --Stephenzhu 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should both feel free to ignore me ... but the whole thing seems to be much ado about a little piece of the big picture. The article is getting vandalized like crazy, all of the references need to be checked, and WP:BLP is pretty clear on demanding VERY high standards for any critical content. It seems to me that, unless you've got the whole thing from a major news article, it might be best to move along to some of the other work needed to get the POV tag removed and get the article references checked. This one issue is taking up a lot of time and space. Sandy 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree!!!!! The article has a bit Pro-Lamont POV problem - it is in shambles. And this is much ado about nothing. Just put "The couple divorced in 1981." There are more important things. Stephenzhu - read WP:BLP LionO 22:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I delore the vandalism but I also deplore the small mindness of the approaches taking by the editors of this article. Only one light can come in, not the whole sunbeams. --Stephenzhu 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How poetic. Stephenzhu - have you read WIKI policy on editiong? LionO 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading or Practicing, that is the question. --Stephenzhu 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Contraceptions In Conn

removal of the misleading legal opinion in the reproductive rights section.

for example, Washington State, Illinois and California each has a law that requires emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception. --Stephenzhu 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, I think this is true. However, CT does not have such a law, and thus it would be against state constitution to require religious hospitals to offer contraceptives. The CT state constitution does not and cannot mandate Catholic hospitals to give emergency contraceptives to patients. It does, however, encourage them to do so, but does not mandate it due to separation of church and state. [33]

That doesn't seem to be right. Since CT has no law, it is not against the constitution of CT to enact a law which will do the same thing as the other three states. --Stephenzhu 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the study? You may remember, for example, that SD passed and signed that horrible (my opinion) anti-abortion law. States can do that. They can be challenged at the federal level, but until that happens, state law exists. CT law does not mandate religious hospitals to give out emergency contraception. Read the study. LionO 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the logic here. Rephrase, CT, just as SD, WA, IL and CA, according to their state constitutions, can require the religious hospitals to provide rape victims

with information about emergency contraception. Also, they are free to disallow the practice if they choose to. Upon challenge, it may be resolved on the federal level. But the original legal opinion ps is misleading. --Stephenzhu 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. Currently, CT law does not require religious hospitals to give out EC. SD has basically banned abortion. WA, IL and CA does require religious hospitals to give out EC. Now, a religious worker could sue CA and say that she doesn't want to give out EC. If she were to work her way up to the supreme court and they agree with her, then no state can require religious hospitals to give out EC and any rape victim would have to go to another hospital. LionO 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

missing your point. I removed the following sentence: "Constitutionally, the government cannot require religious hospitals to give out contraceptives." I put an explanation for it. That is all --Stephenzhu 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of that sentence. LionO 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative Action

I put 209 back in. I did put both pro-affirmative action and against affirmative action in to achieve balance. Unlike some editors here who only put materials which put a favorable light on Lieberman and remove sentences critical of Lieberman. --Stephenzhu 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your snarky comments are not appreciated. You have to assume good faith of fellow editors. The original statement was removed because it was not sourced, which is the policy of Wiki. I have read your current edit and added to it so that it is more even. LionO 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My english is not good enough to allow me to appreciate the meaning of snarky. If that is the policy, I removed the aids part on the Gay rights section. Please source it. --Stephenzhu 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was in the source that you provided. LionO 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do encourage other editors to find news source, add more substance to the article, insteading of rehashing the old ones. --Stephenzhu 02:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

HRC comments

The following sentences is indispute, It should be in the endorsement section. removal.

The country's leading gay rights organization, Human Rights Campaign, endorsed Lieberman in the 2006 election. The Human Rights Campaign wrote, "From his sponsorship and votes on workplace fairness and hate crimes legislation, to his support of comprehensive HIV/AIDS treatment, to his consistent opposition to efforts to put discrimination in the U.S. Constitution, Senator Lieberman is a trusted ally in Congress. From his service in the Connecticut Legislature to his three terms in the Senate, the Senator has proven to be a reliable ally and supporter of equality."[22] --Stephenzhu 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this quote - it shows support of an organization for his policies. I am happy to word it as "The Human Rights Campaign has said of Lieberman, "....." It is akin to an organizaion that someone has a A rating or an F rating, which we have elsewhere in the positions sections. LionO 02:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If HRC does have a rating system and rated Lieberman, which is a fact. But the endorsement is not acceptable in the main article. Think again. Can I put a columnist's comments up in the main article? If that is a yes, all hell broke loose. --Stephenzhu 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not tell me that you are assuming that a quote from the leading gay and lesbian lobbying organization is the same as a political hack columnist. An organization represents thousands of voices. A columnist only thinks he does. LionO 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From the wiki point view, yes, they are equate in terms of NPOV. Don't tell me that HRC comments can be considered NPOV. BTW: HRC is not the only GL organization in america. I wouldn't mind if you dig out all the relevent sources. How about leading GL activists? Does their voices count?--Stephenzhu 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No they are not. A columnist's opinionated argument is not considered as quality a source as the official documentation put out by leading organizations such as the HRC. Find a page that contains rankings and quotes from other reputable GLBT organizations on Lieberman's voting record. LionO 02:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, far from generally accepted guidelines. Without concensus, the quote is out. Also, you are implying the leading GL org can be represented by HRC, which is far from the truth. Give other sides of view a consideration, please. --Stephenzhu 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong again. That's not my opinion. Primary sources are preferable to a columnist's spin. That's standard WIKI policy. The quote is a primary source. It is in, as it has been for over a month. If you don't like it: FILE FOR MEDIATION. You have violated the 3 revert rule! LionO 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are only applying a litmus test, if someone is for Lieberman, he is a primary source. If someone is critical of Lieberman, he is political hack. Good faith, remember to ask youself that question. --Stephenzhu 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole much? The only source that I challenged is the anti-Lieberman Herzberg column who (for the umpteenth time) quoted another source. There is no reason to use the anti-Lieberman Herzberg source when the original source is readily available. And now you are saying I get rid of all sources that are anti-Lieberman? If they are inappropriate and misused they SHOULD be gotten rid of - as should pro-lieberman sources. Wiki Policy. You will need to give up here. You are in the wrong.

All I did is try to include a citation without any text. Now you want is to put a verbos and flowery

endorsement of Lieberman on the main article. Where is the neutrality? --Stephenzhu 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor Neutrality

I think we do need to think hard on the neutrality of the editors. Some of the editors on this pages does nothing but to spin the article to cast a favorable light on Lieberman's records. I challenge the editors on this page to present their editor record which can be shown to be balanced. The record speaks for itself, I consistantly add materials which are neutral, critical and favorable to Lieberman. Neutral Example: date of birth/death of lieberman parents, early life, marriage Critical: Gay rights, abortion, Affirmative action. Favorable: Affirmative Action, free trade (fuzzy one here), Israel (another fuzzy one). I challenge other editors to do the same. Also, I am not registered with any political party and have not voted in any presidential and congressional races. I don't resice in CT. I challenge other editors to be transparent of their political affliations--Stephenzhu 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I challenge Stephenzhu to assume good faith of other editors, which is Wiki Policy and doesn't seem to be followed according to the "challenge" he wrote above. LionO 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I begins with a consensus driven approach, trying to accomondate differen opinions. It turns out some of the editors are more opinioned than ever and doesn't allow any compromise. Assuming good faith doesn't mean the other editors are in good faith. I don't assume good faith on the vandalist, for example. After all, the editorial records speaks for itself. --02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

File for mediation. There's a three revert rule. You've gone past it. If you don't get your way, you can't keep reverting. File for mediation. By saying "the editorial records speaks for itself" you are implying that mine doesn't. That's not an assumption of good faith. Either file for mediation or stop. To flame away is a violation of Wiki Policy.

Good call. --02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my call for neutrality in editing and reveal your political affiliations if you want to be heavily involved. --Stephenzhu 04:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

File for mediation. By not doing so, you are in violation of Wiki policy. Your my-way-or-the-highway attitude is unacceptable. No editor needs to reveal political affiliations. LionO 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to reveal that affiliations. But I do think this will be help to establish their neutrality if the neutrality is in doubt. In a court of law, defendant are assumed innocent. But an alibi will help. --Stephenzhu 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephenzhu's suggestion to remove Lamont endorsements, Lamont ad description, Lamont policy descriptions

Stephenzhu wrote:

as an editor of Lieberman wiki page, you shouldn't be thinking who Lamont is. Why care about Lamont when you are editing Lieberman wiki page. To really achieve the neutrality, you should forget who Lamont is, what Lamont is doing, What the latest attach ad is saying. Focusing on the facts, hard cold facts. --Stephenzhu 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Stephenzhu wrote. This is a page about Joe Lieberman. The descriptions and discussion of Lamont are too long. I wish to follow Stephenzhu's suggestion and remove all Lamont endorsements, descriptions of Lamont's ads and Lamont's policy discussions. They belong on a Lamont page or a 2006 CT campaign. Not on a Lieberman page. The page is long enough. LionO 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some editor is grabbing every chance they have to get rid of sentences which are critical of Lieberman. The pages is now filled with flowery comments who are favorable to Lieberman's at best mixed record. I again call for a neutral editor who take charge of the page. The neutral editor needs to be transparent of their own political affliations, unlike some of the editors here on the page. --Stephenzhu 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, some editor keeps trying to change the page to make it an anti-Lieberman page. What page have you been reading? The fact is that this page has gone through many consensus edits before your arrival. You need to assume good faith and stop assuming that consensus equals what you want. File for mediation if you are unhappy. At this point, your constant edits - which need to be reverted because they have NOT achieved consensus - is considered vandalism. LionO 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

reread my comments again. I am talking about the state of mind when you are editing, not the materials. I think the Lamont materials are currently minimal and does help the readers to grasp the current events. On the other hand, some see any thing critical of Lieberman as Pro-Lamont. That is the unethical editorial standard I am talking about. --Stephenzhu 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are backpedaling like mad. Dude, you wanted to hide that Lieberman co-sponsored legislation on video games with Hillary and Evan Bayh -- heavens forbid that someone should discover legislation was cosponsored! And yet, it's ok to expand upon Lamont's endorsements and ads and positions? Why not just put that all on a Lamont page and provide a link? I guess you don't want to do that for the same reason that you want to use an anti-Lieberman column as a "fact" source, huh? LionO 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, 90% or more of the bills are co-sponsored. The Iraq resolution has 136 co-sponsors on the House floor plus Senate.... Do you want to put all of them up? --Stephenzhu 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Baloney - this legislation came from Hillary, Bayh and Lieberman. All three appeared together and it was reported as such. Normally there is a Sponsor followed by co-sponsors. In this case, it the big three were Hillary, Bayh and LIeberman. To suggest that leaving off Hillary and Bayh somehow paints a more truthful picture is like saying only Lewis should be mentioned in a Lewish article, and not Clark. Funny how you have no problem mentioning Lamont all over the place, but fear Hillary and Bayh's name along side Lieberman's.

I have always been checking on the sources. the source, newly included, says th bill is introduced by hillary, co-sponsored by tim, joe and eva. get your facts straight. Get the primary source and practice what you preach. --Stephenzhu 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Record

I have been digging into LIonO's editorial record. I fail to find any item which is entirely neutral or critical of Lieberman's record. If some one else can present it, please share with us. --04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely a violation of Wiki Policy. Nowhere on this page has Stephenzhu assumed good faith. My political leanings are not of his business. I am here, like everybody else, to write a fair page. If Stephenzhu wishes to challenge me, he should apply for mediation already or stop posting. LionO 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a violation of Wiki policy, Lion? Tendentious editing? Sandy 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The violation of Wikipolicy is that Stephenzhu will not assume good faith when it comes to other editors. He is arguing that other editors have a bias, while he does not. And, yes, the tendentious editing is a violation, too. LionO 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be locked for repeated vandalism by Anon users.

--Bearly541 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Locking an article in the midst of an election cycle would be a shame. Involved editors would be able to keep up with the vandalism from anons if they weren't arguing over small points. Perhaps an admin can encourage Lion and Stephen to edit more productively. Sandy 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I busy myself with adding substance from new materials. --Stephenzhu 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Stephenzhu, stop trying to change things that editors have found consensus upon. Stop trying to make the article sound more pro-Lamont. LionO 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please pinpoint which section has the so called consensus. We can discuss it in a civil manner, MF. --Stephenzhu 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a Criticism section

It seems that we could avoid much of this bickering by adding a section to the page entitled "Criticism." This would detail criticisms of Lieberman as well as Lieberman's/Lieberman's supporters' responses. I feel that this will better educate people reading the article and make them aware that Lieberman is a controversial figure within the Democratic party--a subject on which this article provides little detail. Smedley Hirkum 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This can only be possible if the current page is made to be less pro-Lamont. I would not be in favor of a criticism page if (1) the current article is left as is or (2) the criticism is longer than the actual article. LionO 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please give examples of what you are referring to. I don't see any pro-Lamont bias; if anything, the opposite seems to be true. Smedley Hirkum 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a reasonable suggestion. Currently, all the potential criticism on Lieberman's records have been ruthlessly purged from the main article. Not even an citation can survive. --Stephenzhu 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On Liberman denoucing Clinton

I added the following paragraph.

He[Lieberman] took the Senate floor to condemn the president's marital infidelity as "immoral" and denounce his "premeditated" deception. [34]

it is from a news story and all the text are coorborated. If you want to change it, please find another source which more satisfactory to you. In the text you cited, [35], the title is "Senator Joe Lieberman Attacks Clinton", go figure. --Stephenzhu 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I have is not with the source, but your rephrasing of it. Why not quote in context? Why do we have to hear you summarize it for us? That's manipulative. I'd rather not have your summary and just have a link to the speech and be able to read it myself, with out you having to tell me how it should be read. LionO 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the link to Lieberman's speech, this usage seems to be exactly what Lieberman meant. There seems to be nothing deceptive or misleading about this. Please clarify the problem you have with this rephrasing. To quote paragraphs at a time from Lieberman's speeches would be impractical.Smedley Hirkum 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The passage would read better if the sentence was quoted in full. It is currently not as accurrate to take out two words and say that it's not been biased. EIther say "Lieberman criticized Clinton for his relations with Lewinsky" and then link to the text, or give more context. I also resent that Lieberman's widespread support for his speech (and the sourced info) was taken out LionO 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LionO, the entire sentence reads "It is immoral." Looking at the previous sentence, it is apparent that he is referring to his marital infidelity. Certainly removing these two words--"it" and "is"--to create a smoother flowing sentence does not detract from the meaning. "Premeditated" comes from a longer sentence, but it is quoted entirely within context. Please read the speech and tell me what your specific objections are. How is this biased? Please give examples beyond "because you are only quoting a couple words." You should see this is entirely in line with what Lieberman meant. Smedley Hirkum 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't rephrase, I use the original sentences from the article I cited. Please check again.--Stephenzhu 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you did. You didn't cite the passage as a whole. You inserted your own language and wove it within the selected words that you pulled out of the quote. Either quote the passage in full, without your editorializing, or don't quote it but link to the speech. It's the same argument over and over again: you don't understand the difference between a [primary source] and a [secondary source].

please check the article, I didn't change the sentence at all. Your charges are not helping. --Stephenzhu 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

All my editing is backed up by sources cited. I challenge all othe other editors to do the same. For example, one editor wrote, Lieberman is a Modern Lieberman Orthodox. What does that mean? Did Lieberman said that? Betty was a reform Jew. did she recant? --Stephenzhu 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An Orthodox Jew can be a Hasid, a Lubuvicher, or any number of different types of Orthodox Jews. Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew: he belongs to a Modern Orthodox temple. His daughters were Bat Mitzvahed, which would not be the case for all Orthodox Jews. He does not have payis or grow his beard. He does not wear a yarmulke (kippah) all the time. He is a practicioner of Modern Orthodoxy. +

- To say that an Orthodox Jew is more religious than a Reform Jew or any other Jew is insulting. An Orthodox Jew is more traditional than a Reform Jew, but that is not the same thing as saying that the Orthodox Jew is more religious. A Reform Jew can be religious, but not practice Orthodox traditions, while an Orthodox Jew can practice Orthodox traditions, but not be very religious. LionO 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

- The para didn't say that, You are putting your understanding into the text. Please substantiate your change that "Lieberman is a modern Orthodox".

Judaims is a continuum. Even inside the Orthodox community, you can be more religious and you can be less religious. --Stephenzhu 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In Hebrew, there is no word for "religion". The closest word is "dat", which means "religious law." You are using Christian theory to categorize Judaism. A Jew is more orthodox, or more traditional, but being orthodox does NOT mean that one is more religious. It means that one follows tradition more. Someone who keeps kosher is NOT NECESSARILY more religious than someone who doesn't. LionO 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are reading too much from the article, I am only laying out the facts. If you want to dispute any specific sentences in the article, please pinpoint and discuss them. Now I don't know what you are talking about. In Hebrew, there is no word for the lord either, so what.... ---Stephenzhu 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. You are not laying out the facts. You are losing the facts in the translation. It is inaccurrate to say that just because someone is Orthodox, he is more religious than another Jew. It is more accurrate to say that an Orthodox Jew is more traditional. It's like of like why you don't say "We are on a crusade to stop Islamic terrorists." It's offensive. It is offensive to say Orthodox Jews are more religious. I have not changed the source. I have not changed the quotes. I have changed the way you have discussed the source so that it is more accurrate and less offensive. Do you not care that you offend people in the way you have written something up? LionO 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the para, and pinpoint the sentences you are satisfied with. I cannot follow your logic like this. Look, I am also working on perfecting the article, so I have less time than you in terms of casting a positve light on Lieberman. --Stephenzhu 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I do make mistakes in C&P, I apologize for that. Obviously, I don't have enough time on this. --Stephenzhu 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the religion section that you keep copying and pasting. Note the poor grammar, the duplication and the incorrect terminology: - - Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. He was not very observant in 1965 and his first wife is a Reform Jew. Since 1967 death of Lieberman's grandmother, who is a a deeply religious immigrant, Lieberman found renewed interest in terms of religious observance. His second wife, Hadassah, is an Orthodox Jew, who is more conservative than him. "Hadassah calls herself my right wing", says Lieberman. " In Lieberman's 1988 upset of GOP incumbent Senator Lowell Weicker, his religion was mostly discussed in terms of his inability to campaign on Saturdays. But that changed when Gore chose Lieberman as the running mate. [36] "He refers to himself as observant, as opposed to Orthodox, because he doesn't follow the strict Orthodox code and doesn't want to offend the Orthodox, and his wife feels the same way," said a Lieberman press officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Liebermans keep their home Kosher and observe + Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew. He was not very observant in 1965 and his first wife was a Reform Jew. Since 1967 death of Lieberman's grandmother, who was a Jewish immigrant who observed Orthodox traditions, Lieberman found renewed interest in Jewish Orthodoxy. His second wife, Hadassah, also an Orthodox Jew, is more traditional than him. "Hadassah calls herself my right wing", says Lieberman. " In Lieberman's 1988 upset of GOP incumbent Senator Lowell Weicker, his religion was mostly discussed in terms of his inability to campaign on Saturdays. But that changed when Gore chose Lieberman as the running mate. [37] "He refers to himself as observant, as opposed to Orthodox, because he doesn't follow the strict Orthodox code and doesn't want to offend the Orthodox, and his wife feels the same way," said a Lieberman press officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Liebermans keep their home Kosher and observe the Sabbath. Nonetheless, some Orthodox Jews have voiced their concerns about their omissions, such as Hadassah's infrequent covering of her head. [38] - - 1) "deeply religious" should be changed to "who observed Orthodox traditions". You are saying the former, but mean the latter. - 2) conservative is an inappropriate word. More traditional is more appropriate. - 3) Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew. To say he is an Orthodox Jew is too general - he could be a Hasid! - 4) In general, use "traditional" instead of "religious" - 5) Watch your tenses - they are all off. Use correct grammar - 6) There is no need to include a duplication of the text, as you seem to continue to do. - 7) Saying that there are orthodox people who don't think he's orthodox enough is obvious and isn't worth mentioning. That's like saying there are fundamentalist christians who don't think a christian is christian enough. It's obvious and, without the term Modern Orthodox, it makes it sound like Lieberman is a religious hypocrite when in fact Hasidim, Libuvich, Lakewood Jews do not think that Modern Orthodox is true Judaism. That's not a problem with Lieberman - that's a problem with one movement disagreeing with another. LionO 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree that the phrase "more religious" is subjective and POV in a secular encyclopedia, and that "more traditional" is a better, more neutral phrasing. And keep in mind that I am an Orthodox Jew myself. marbeh raglaim 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aargh! There is currently an edit war going on between LionO and StephenZhu on the religion section. I have tried to make minor corrections, but they have all been lost because you two keep restoring your original preferred version while completely ignoring what I've been trying to do. My problem with both versions is not over your quibbles, but simply with the fact that both versions are poorly written. Could you two make up your mind on what the article should say so I can be free to clean up the writing? marbeh raglaim 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I will try to recover you effot. --Stephenzhu 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Helms

- I think too much space is given to a 1994 bill and not enough context. Therefore, there must be mediation and the Jesse Helmes bill discussion in the gay rights section should be removed until mediation. LionO 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem adding more context, provided there's a good argument behind it. Why don't we discuss it first. What context would you like to add? Smedley Hirkum 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree if someone want to dig out more on this bill, but currently it is bare facts, no incensed accusation. Removing it is nothing less than vandalism. --Stephenzhu 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You just removed this without listening to us! We said you should discuss your proposed changes because we have no problem adding more context. Please, don't just ignore us here. This page is a project of all of us, not just you. I'm reverting this.Smedley Hirkum 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think too much space is dedicated to it. I think it should be reduced to one sentence, since it paints an inaccurrate picture of his present positions. As a 1994 vote, the issues are old and the bill is most likely out of date. That's like saying Robert Byrd was in the KKK and spending a full paragraph on that, and then a few sentences on his current positions on race relations.

Robert Byrd was in the KKK 60 years ago. Joe Lieberman voted for this 10 years ago. If you think this paints an inaccurate picture of his present positions, why don't we add something to the effect of, "Although now he is a proponent of gay rights, he cosponsored this bill with JEsse Helms." That seems to be quite neutral to me. Do you object? Smedley Hirkum 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, yes, if you can reduce the materials into one sentense, please be my guest in posting it in discussion. I am all for succinct articles

BTW: please check how long the wiki page for Byrd devoted on KKK, much more than the whole gay section. --Stephenzhu 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are longer sections that categorize him as a progressive and give a clear picture of his voting record. Contrarily, the gay rights sentence, because you want to delete so much, spends more time talking about the Jesse Helmes vote and less space on anything else combined LionO 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This conversation cannot continue until Stephenzhu explains why he wishes to remove all of gay rights bills that Lieberman co-sponsored.

I would like a balanced view on Lieberman's record. Both sides need to be covered. I don't think Lieberman, as a conservative democrat, is shamed about the Jess Helms bill, then the question is why some editor want to water it down. --Stephenzhu 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's compromise. Let's add in both bills Lieberman sponsored supporting gay rights as well as the bill with Jesse Helms. Let's also make clear that his position today is different than his previous position. Smedley Hirkum 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No compromise until an appropriate source is found. The current source is inaccurrate. Find the voting record that shows he voted for it. LionO 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the current source: [39] It is bogus. LionO 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think this is bogus, but HERE YOU GO, LIONO. Salon.com. You are being very difficult here. It's getting hard to assume good faith in your case. And if you call this source bogus, then find one yourself. There are a million. [40] Smedley Hirkum 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to be accurrate and fair, yes. This source is not appropriate - it is an opinion piece. Get a voting record. Surely, if you say he voted for it, you can show first hand evidence. LionO 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are ridiculous. Find it yourself. I don't know the number of the bill--it would take me hours to find the voting record. We have two sources that corroborate this. One of them, Salon.com, is a popular and respected publication. It doesn't matter that it's opinion. Columnists aren't allowed to lie! You can't deny the truth like this. Smedley Hirkum 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephenzhu found it pretty quickly. Sorry that you don't think quality research is worth the time. LionO 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And what did it say? It said I WAS RIGHT! You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to subversively vandalise an article like this. Smedley Hirkum 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I also want an explanation why stephenzhu removed this:

Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have. [41]

and this:

In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [42]

and this:

Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided medicaid treatment for people with HIV. [43]    

and this:

Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender. [44]

UNACCEPTABLE! LionO 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be considerate of your formatting. I removed the other references because the sake balancing the section, I have to exercise some editorial standard. If you want to put Lieberman's every legislative act in, the para will be flooded beyond recognition. The citation provide all the necessary info. --Stephenzhu 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but aren't you the one complaining about people removing stuff without discussing it? Sounds sounds like are are the pot and the kettle. You don't get to choose what's an important vote. That's (1) original research which Wiki doesn't care about and (2) that's achieved by consensus. I see nowhere that anyone has said that the Jesse Helmes listing is more important than any of the things that you have deleted. Further, what you have deleted was properly sourced. The Jesse Helmes paragraph used a bunk source. LionO 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jesse Helms paragraph did NOT use a bunk source. I found another source to corroborate it. See above. Please edit your entry to remove the false accusations per WP:BLP. Smedley Hirkum 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a bunk source - the first source did not mention that L. voted for it. The second source mentioned that, but it failed to mention that L. was joined with 11 other Democrats - it painted it as if it was L. alone. Context please. LionO 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I deplore that the situation has become so wretched that a neutral editor cannot maintain the quality of the page without resorting to deleting unwarrant materials. --Stephenzhu 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense.

There is no reason for the removal of what I have written above. You cannot remove without explaining. Explain yourself. LionO 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now can we compromise? Let's put in the bills that Lieberman sponsored--pro and anti gay. Okay??? Smedley Hirkum 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

we need a proper context on the Helms amendement and balanced texts on the section. --Stephenzhu 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I included all the bills, including Jesse Helmes's amendment, including the name of the bill, the voting record (the only source needed) and that L. was joined by 11 democrats. I also included all the bills and policies that Stephenzhu deleted. LionO 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the other 11 democrats doesn't matter, we are talking about Lieberman here. Remembe rule no.1 here. Your texts doesn't give a proper context. --Stephenzhu 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It does matter. If it didn't matter, the Iraq section wouldn't mention what other Democrats think about Lieberman's position. Obviously, he was joined by 11 other Democrats here who agreed with him. Either keep that in, or remove all mention of what other Democrats think about Lieberman's Iraq position.LionO 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have record of Democrat's leaders position on the Helmes amendment, please add them. --Stephenzhu 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in the voting record. We know how they voted. It's in the source. You provided the source. That's why I wrote "Lieberman and 11 other democrats voted for the amendment." Now, since you do not think mention of other Democrats is important - shall we get rid of mention in the Iraq section? I want a yes or no. LionO 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to compromising with all the votes from Lieberman. --Stephenzhu 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reid has specific comments on the iraq reso. in the iraq section, if you can find similar comments, feel free to include them. --Stephenzhu 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. So we will include that he voted with 11 Democrats on the Jesse Helmes amendment and that he co-sponsored the Video Games legislation with Hillary and Evan Bayh. And, we keep Reid and Pelosi's comments on Lieberman in the Iraq section. LionO 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

please stick to the Jess Helms disc, I cannot follow your logic. --Stephenzhu 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you can't. You argued that no other Democrats should be mentioned and therefore it's not important to note that Lieberman voted with 11 other Democrats for the JH amendment. I argued, if it's not important to mention other Democrats, then they should not be mentioned in the Iraq section. You then changed your mind and said that they could be mentioned. Therefore, they will be mentioned in the Iraq Section. The 11 other Democrats will be mentioned in the Jesse H section and Hillary and Bayh will be mentioned in the video games section. You have two choices:

1) Do not mention 11 other Dems who voted for Jesse amendment, do not mention Hillary and Evan Bayh in video section, do not mention other Democrat's criticism of Lieberman in Iraq section

OR

2) DO mention 11 other Dems who voted for Jesse amendment, DO mention Hillary and Evan Bayh in video section, DO mention other Democrat's criticism of Lieberman in Iraq section

Which is it?LionO 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

solid democrat states, in 1994? I profess that I don't have that information available that way back. Please substantiate.

BTW: votes and criticism are not the same. If you can find Hilary's criticism of Lieberman, please add them where you see proper. --Stephenzhu 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I added that 11 other democrats voted for the bill, but that Lieberman was only one of 2 to do so from a blue state. Can we keep that?????? Maybe discuss it here before you change it? Smedley Hirkum 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The idea of red state/blue state began in 2000 with the contested election and when Republicans pretty much had all of the southern senate seats (except Louisiana). THat was not the case in 1993. Clinton had the support of several southern states, which were blue in 1992, but red in 2000.

In my original edit, I said "from a SOLIDLY democratic state" to avoid problems like that. can we keep that?Smedley Hirkum 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The dynamics were different back then. CT was not solidly blue. Bush Sr came from CT and Clinton campaigned there a lot. There is no reason to say anything other than LIeberman voted with 11 other Democrats. LionO 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. Clinton beat bush by more than 18 points. [45] Smedley Hirkum 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed any vote reference without a voting record, as per request. On the helms, I think a longer intro is needed. current version seems to be too short to convey any context. Please post your complete burb. --Stephenzhu 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A longer intro is not needed on helmes. It should not be any longer than any of the other policy votes Lieberman has made. If you continue to write longer intros for negative aspects, I will write longer intros for positive aspects. If you want a size contest, you've got it. LionO 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You will probably agree that the Helms vote is an exception. It is the job of this article to highlight the exception together with the norm. What about Lieberman's other numerous votes on the hill? don't you think?

I have no problem with pointing out an exception. Indeed my edits, which you keep deleting, point it out. But you don't want to point out an exception. You want to make the exception the major focus of the section. You want to delete references to voting records that show the norm. You want to delete most things current. You want to make the gay rights section about LIEBERMAN ONCE VOTED FOR A JESSE HELMES AMENDMENT and only a little bit about lieberman's pro gay rights record. That's dishonoest. Wiki is not interested in making exceptions get more emphasis than anything else.LionO 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I only want a balanced coverage of Lieberman's at best mixed record. Please count the word length. Are they balanced?--Stephenzhu 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NO you have dedicated way more words to Jesse Helms than anything else in the section. Furthermore, there should not be an even 50/50 balance between pro-gay rights moves and anti-gay rights moves. You have listed two anti-gay rights moves. I have counted MANY pro-gay rights moves. That does not mean that you can elaborate upon the two anti-gay rights votes so that there's an even number of words for pro- and anti-sections. His record is largely pro-gay rights and it should emphasize that, noting -but not emphasizing - the exceptions. After all, as you note HRC rated him an 88%. Therefore, 88% of the section should be pro- and 22% of the section should emphasize the reverse, which is what my section does.

There are so many things wrong with what you are saying. First of all, that adds up to 110%. Second of all, HRC said he was 88 out of 100-- meaning that they gave 87 other senators higher ratings than him. I agree that this should be about 70/30. 70% should be emphasizing his pro gay positions, 30 emphasizing he anti-gay ones. Smedley Hirkum 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right that 88 + 22 is 110. I mean 88/12. However, you are incorrect in your assumption about the HRC ranking. He gets an 88% out of 100. That is NOT 88th place out of 100. Read the source. He voted on HRC endorsed positions 88% of the time.

Maybe we should include the ranking in there too. --Stephenzhu 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. You just keep deleting it. LionO 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, didn't see it, please post on the talk board. --Stephenzhu 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative Action

Some editor put,

As a college student, Lieberman marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and helped black voters in Mississippi register for a vote during a time when white college students were killed for doing just that. [46]

Although Lieberman criticized aspects of affirmative action programs in the mid-1990s, he continues to support affirmative action. [47]

It seems to me, 1st, how he marched doesn't indicate how he thinks of AA. 2nd. the second sentence is editorialing. --Stephenzhu 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude - the heading of the section is Affirmative Action and Race Relations. Are you saying MLK is not relevant to race relations? 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be relevant, but not pertinent. After all, the march has been covered in early life. If you want to expand on that, be my guest. please cite properly. --Stephenzhu 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's put marching with MLK in early life, since that's when he did it. He wasn't a senator at the time But let's not remove it all together.Smedley Hirkum 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Need More Substance, Not Slant

Some of the editors here only try to spin the article in one way, insteading of adding more of substances, getting new sources. --Stephenzhu 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the editors here only try to spin the article in one way, instead of adding more substance, getting new sources. LionO 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please present evidences. --Stephenzhu 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd, weren't you the one that made the claim in the first place? LionO 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently, all the accurate voting records from the senate and house web page are my editorial results. Please present yours. --Stephenzhu 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU KEEP DELETING THEM. And you are not correct when you say that you present voting records. In fact, you (now) present voting records along side bogus sources that are not voting records. Only use the voting records. Here are mine, which you keep deleting:

Lieberman voted no on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. [[48]] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."

In 2004, Lieberman scored 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality, which called him "a wolf in sheep's clothing, with a secret mission to outlaw homosexuality."[49]

Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have. [[50]]

In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [[51]]

Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV. [52]

Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender. [53]

In 1993, Lieberman joined 11 other Democrats in voting for the Improving America's School Act of 1993, S.1513, which contained an amendment by Jesse Helmes that prohibited federal funding for schools that encouraged or supported homosexual behavior. [54]

Also in 1993, Lieberman voted with 29 other Democrats to prohibit HIV positive imigrants from entering the United States. [55]

THEY ARE ALL VOTING RECORDS!!!!!!!!!!! STOP DELETING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LionO 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I want voting records from the house and senate database. Please provide them before you post it. (now you can use some real work instead of reverting)--Stephenzhu 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, they ARE voting records. They are a listing of house and senate database voting records. LionO 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

where are the citation from? did you double check them? why not do the real work rather than just reverting?

Are you for real? They are the voting records from the house and senate as listed in the Congressional Scorecard Report complied by the HRC. You are arguing over nothing. I have provided voting records since day one. You have not. I was happy that you found voting records so that the section lists all voting records.LionO 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You argued that the Advocate's reporting is vague and junk, why can I ask for some double checking from you? why not just get your sleeves up and do the work? --Stephenzhu 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees

Please present your reasons why you want to remove the followng para.

He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.[56]

--Stephenzhu 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some editor put, please provide a year and a voting record for the HIV imigrants vote and the DC employee vote if you want it in there. the source is vague. If that is the case, why not you check on every voting record in the gay rights section. --Stephenzhu 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Stephenzhu, if you looked at those sources THEY ARE THE VOTING RECORDS. ALL OF MY INCLUSIONS HAVE CONTAINED VOTING RECORDS. Your sources have been vauge. Provide a year of the vote and the voting record if you want it included. LionO 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I want a voting records from the original source. If you found the adocate to be vage and junk, please post the original source. I already showed you how to do it. Please take up the task instead of reverting back and force. --Stephenzhu 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

violent games

that section is in shambles, please discuss it if you want to contribute to it. --Stephenzhu 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not in shambles. You just don't like that I think it should metion that L co-sponsored the bill with two other Democrats. You would rather that it seem like he was acting alone, against Democrats LionO 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Let's keep it as it is. Smedley Hirkum 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stephenzhu, there is no need to hide that L. co-sponsored it with Hillary and Evan Bayh. LionO 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that first. Hilary didn't co-sponsor it, Hilary introduced it, Joe co-sponsored. My original post is in much better quality. Please get the fact straight, just one click away. --20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocate, Junk Source??

Some editor called Advocate, a national newsmagazine covers topics of interest to the gay and lesbian community. Features news on legal issues, health information, entertainment and pop-cultural happenings, a junk source. Please reflect and check again. --Stephenzhu 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting Record

Some of the editors constantly request the voting record to be posted. I challenge them to put a single vote record on any issue. I have constantly post voting record, at least 10 of them. --Stephenzhu 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On constant reverting

Some editor here are constantly reverting. I have to busy myself with checking sources and cannot keep up with the partisan slant at work. I apologize to the readers. --Stephenzhu 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannot deal with it, one side is the vandalism, another side is a partisan hand who is determined to cast a favorable light on Lieberman's record. --Stephenzhu 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LionO's Agenda

There are some criticism of LionO's editing style.

12.150.161.10 (Talk) (LionO - there now its says it just like the article. You obviously have an agenda here.) 12.150.161.10 (Talk) (LionO - you have to be kidding. This is the whole reason that Lieberman is in a huge primary battle. It is undeniable and perhaps the most significant information about him currently.)

LionO also direct personal attack against me. e.g. 21:12, 2 August 2006 LionO (Talk | contribs) (→Gay rights - Stephenzhu is dishonest. Even Smedley said the section should be 70/30, which my version is. Your version is 10/90)

While LionO has done substantial work on preventing vandalism, I deplore the naming calling and obvious non-partisan behavior in this highly charged wiki page. --Stephenzhu 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that LionO has a history. check the beginning of discussing page.

He and I got into some major ones, and he outlasted me, despite that the day I decided to give up I was offered help (which I had requested) from a member's advocate. I was just too consumed by it. He does like to remove anything critical of Lieberman, though, by criticizing the source.

--Stephenzhu 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. LionO, please let us improve the article without reverting things over and over and not discussing it. Smedley Hirkum 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I could make the same claim against Stephenzhu. I suggest filing for mediation. LionO 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

83.44.38.86

This user consistently vandalizes the article. What do we do? LionO 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if Lion and Stephen would figure out how to come to consensus on the talk page, we could ask for admin intervention against the anon vandalism to the actual article. But at the rate you two are going at it, we may have a hard time making a case against an anon editor, since the entire article is one big edit war now, with so many tags that no one will read the thing anyway. Sandy 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ADA and ACU rating

this stupid rating is out of whack. now the article contains 1999 rating. 2002 ADA rating is 85/100, [57] 2005-6? rating 81 [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665273/posts] his liberal ADA lifetime rating of 81 [58]

cannot find original source. please contribute. --Stephenzhu 21:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

calmness, Stephenzhu. National Council of Effective Congress and American Conservative Union ratings - current ones - are up. LionO 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please find other rating, aclu has one too. --Stephenzhu 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd amount of tags

Adding an unbalanced tag, on top of an NPOV tag, is really silly. At any rate, the end result is the same: because of the edit warring, the article is now to a point that no one will read it anyway. Is that the intended result? Sandy 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for removing the tags. The edit warring is unfortunate. I wish there was a better way to stop POV problems. LionO 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do not understand why Stephenzhu created so many tags. After a while, it became impossible to hold a conversation because of the edit wars. LionO 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You two could agree to step back for a bit on your disagreements -- since the only result right now is that no one will read the article anyway with all these tags -- and agree to take a short break, fight the obvious vandalism, check the sources, preserve what's there, reference the stuff that is leading to POV, and take up your minor disagreements at a later time. If you're thinking this article is going to influence the election, do you really think anyone will read it anyway with all these tags on it? Remove disputed comments to the talk page, and deal with them here, come to consensus, and then re-add them. Just an idea -- it's too bad the article has now been rendered useless, while Lamont is sitting pretty. Sandy 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in its current state, I think the article is neutral. I did not like, however, that Stephenzhu kept cutting and pasting more and more stuff that emphasized anti-Lieberman stuff and deleted or weeded out favorable positions in Lieberman's history. I'm not sure why the tags are up. I don't think they need to be there anymore. I don't think the article is particularly pro- or anti- Lieberman. LionO 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I have been notified that this dispute may need mediation again. I am not an official mediator, and I strongly suggest you file a request at the Mediation Cabal. That said, I will try to help.

Please remember to stay civil; comment on the content and not the contributor.

Please do not make controversial edits during this discussion, edit-warring is not productive. If someone else makes an edit you disagree with, do not respond in kind.

Let me ask each participant to state the problems they have with the current article and proposed solutions below. Please refrain from commenting on other participants' statements at this time. --Ideogram 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up, Ideogram - we could use you.

Here is the essence of the issue, although it has stemmed into other areas as well.

1) In the Lieberman article, I want the section to read as follows:

Lieberman voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.[59] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88% out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality."[60]

Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have.[61]

In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[62]

Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV.[63]

Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender.[64]

In 1993, Lieberman joined 11 other Democrats in voting for the Improving America's School Act of 1993, S.1513, which contained an amendment by Jesse Helmes that prohibited federal funding for schools that encouraged or supported homosexual behavior.[65]

Stephenzhu wants the section to read as follows:

Lieberman voted no on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. [[66]] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."

In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88% out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality."[67]

In August, 1994, Jesse Helms (R-SC) and Bob Smith (R- NH) proposed an amendment, S.AMDT.2434, to Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA), that is, S.1513, that would prevent federal funding for schools that "implement or carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle." This amendment would cut off funding for schools that teach tolerance of homosexuality or provide gay-sensitive counseling. [68] [69][70]Lieberman voted for the amendment. [71] He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.[72][73]

I find his write-up to be problematic because

1) Although Lieberman receives an 88% rating form the Human Rights Campaign for being pro-gay rights, Stephenzhu's write-up ignores all but one pro-gay vote by Lieberman and instead emphasizes a 1994 vote on an Elementary and Secondary Education funding bill that contained an amendmentment on disavowing funding to schools that promote gay lifestyle. Althought Stephenzhu is willing to announce that the amendment was proposed by two Republicans, he does not include mention that 11 democrats also voted for the bill with Lieberman. Second, Stephenzhu wants to write that Lieberman voted to prohibit HIV-positive imigrants from the country. However, his source does not give context nor the vote call and I have asked him to find it and use that as a source, not a secondary source that mentions the vote in passing without elaboration. While I appreciate that he later found a less-biased source (the New York Times source), it is an article about the House banning HIV immigrants and does not contain the vote call for the Senate vote. Third, Stephenzhu wants to include a statement that he voted against a measure to grant domestic partner benefits to District of Columbia employees, but the source provided (the find articles source) again does not give context of the vote. To sum: I have a problem with Stephenzhu's deemphazising Lieberman's pro-gay right's voting record in lieu of emphasizing three votes that are anti-gay rights votes, although the latter two votes have not been explored, discussed or sourced to my satisfaction. My version includes a several, quite recent pro-gay votes in addition to one anti-gay vote that I feel is sourced properly. That vote is given the same emphasis as every other vote in the list - no more, no less. I would be happy to include the other two anti-gay votes in the list if they were sourced with sources that give context and the vote call. Again, these anti-gay votes should not get more emphasis than pro-gay votes. I have said that since the HRC has given him an 88% pro-gay rating, perhaps we should use that as a guideline - 88% of the section should concentrate on his pro-gay record while 12% should concentrate on his anti-gay agenda.

2) I have not liked that Stephenzhu has used the discussion pages to attack me and question my political opinions and agenda and my editing record. When I am not mentioned directly, instead of my nickname, I am criticized as "some editor". I am happy to discuss changes and ideas. But Stephenzhu has to assume good faith.

3) This particular discussion has spilled over in other areas. Stephenzhu has stated in discussions that he thinks it is ok to use opinion columns as proof that someone said something in lieu of a primary source, sunch as a speech or an interview. The quote being sourced appears in both, but in the former it is analyzed, criticized and critiqued, while in the latter, the quote originated and is, of course, not criticized or critiqued. Stephenzhu *seems* to have moved on from this, but continues to get frustrated (and complain about me on the talk page) when I insist on a primary source over a secondary opinionated source.

If I may butt in here, LionO has insisted that opinion columns may not be used as a source at all--especially in instances when primary sources are extremely hard to find--even when we have multiple secondary sources confirming a fact. Is there any Wikipedia policy concerning this? I have never heard of anything prohibiting using reliable secondary sources (such as Salon.com) when primary sources are difficult to locate. Smedley Hirkum 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I never said anything of the sort. Second, Ideogram said above not to comment on each other's statements. Please remove your comment. You may, if you choose, post your current problems with the article LionO 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to opinion columns and criticism, I want to remind you of the very strong wording in WP:BLP: this is a very new policy, requiring the best possible sources for criticism. Sandy 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. And there is no reason to use an opinion column in place of a primary source (speech or interview) when a primary source is available. LionO 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

4) We also need some guidance: Stephenzhu and I have gotten into a "revert" war over the gay right's section and other sections. Given that the election is so close, time is of the essence. Although most of my section was up before Stephenzhu's, he has cut it and replaced it with his nearly 20 times. I have reverted it back continuously as well. I have told Stephenzhu of the three revert rule and then to file mediation, but instead he has continued to revert to his version.

Sorry for these complications. Thank you for your assistance. LionO 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you suppose you all could put your mediation comments on the mediation page, and give us a link here? The article is getting slammed by vandals, there's work to be done, so it would help if the mediation were on its own page. With an election in a few days, this article is not going to stand still while you all mediate. Just an idea, Sandy 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not quite clear how to do that. The good news is that it looks like it was ONE vandal who was slamming the article and he was just banned. Hooray! The other good news is that it looks like all editors who have frequented this site - Stephenzhu included - have tried to stop the vandalism. We are united in this. LionO 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection, so now we've got a break from the vandalism, and you all can solve your disagreements without also having to fight anon vandals :-) There should be a talk page associated with the mediation request – hopefully, the mediator will agree you all can sort it out over there. In the meantime, I'm continuing with ref cleanup, and I'm finding a fairly decent article. The sources are generally good, so you all don't have as big of a problem as I thought :-) Sandy 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just checked WP:MEDCAB, and I don't see your mediation there. Sandy 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - I'm confused about how to request it. Where do I actually post the request? LionO 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already got a mediator, so there must have been an old case. You might not need to request a new one. If you both agree to take the issue to a separate talk page, Ideogram may open a new page associated with his own user page – best to ask Ideogram. Good luck :-) Sandy 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

oops, Lion, I see that Ideogram strongly suggests (at the top of this page) that you file a request at WP:MEDCAB. Sandy 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection was granted. -- Avi 00:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi! Sandy 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! LionO 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Missed the events here. User LionO repeated called me "dishonest" by name. Facing this accusation, I don't need to assume good faith from this user. On the contrary, throughout the conversation, I have maintained my coolness and keep a civil conversation. My record in the discussion page can prove that. LionO has had similar ventures before. LionO is a single-issue editor and fight editor wars with User KP as well. KP testified his experience in the page which I cannot find now on this newly formed page.

Evidence No.1 : 21:12, 2 August 2006 LionO (Talk | contribs) (→Gay rights - Stephenzhu is dishonest. Even Smedley said the section should be 70/30, which my version is. Your version is 10/90)

--Stephenzhu 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've seen LionO's good faith efforts, explanation of the issue, and Stephenzhu's response, I support LionO's more balanced version. Sandy 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

nothing about Lieberman beating black republican congressman Gary Franks?

Contradiction tag

Can anyone explain the contradict tag, so we can try to get rid of one tag? Sandy 01:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion that tag can be removed. The person who posted it was someone who got into a mediation dispute with me a while ago about this page. Ideogram was the mediator. When he didn't like Ideogram's advice, he left - fine. His choice. But when he saw Stephenzhu edit warring with me today, he showed up, praised Stephenzhu, criticized Ideogram and then left the tag, which was one of his disputes - he didn't like how the DLC was portrayed on this page. Given all that is going on, I left it up, but I feel it should be removed. LionO 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lion. Will see what others say before removing, but the tags are overkill. Sandy 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at what the Democratic Leadership Council article says, with a NPOV, about the organization.

"The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation[1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy."

I have no problem with that description. It is balanced. And in fact I'm not anti-DLC, although I think by its strong support of Lieberman it hurts its credibility (at least with me).

This article refuses to say the truth, that it was created by "moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders", a neutral and true statement in the article. Its description of the DLC is not consistent with that of the Wikipedia DLC article itself. The DLC article itself is fair and accurate.

Ideogram was not the mediator. He stepped in to try to mediate while we waited for a mediation cabal mediator to step in. I did criticize what he did, because either (1) Wikipedia policy has no problem with deliberately misleading people if you use verifiable quotes to do so-- which wouldn't be his fault but Wikipedia's-- and if true I know not to trust Wikipedia except in controversy-free areas, (2) He was wrong in his interpretation, or (3) He wanted to help LionO paint Lieberman in a positive, not balanced, light. I know, assume good faith and that it was #1 or #2. Fine. If it's #1, I know Wikipedia blows, though.

The tags say that something in the article is disputed. If it is in dispute, there should be a tag stating so. It is in dispute. I've decided to stay out of edit wars as they are far too taxing, and mostly away from Wikipedia, but I am angry with the removal of tags and this proposed removal as well. -KP 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is misleading anyone. If you have verifiable quotes of your own you want to add, go ahead. --Ideogram 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't even follow all of that, but if you don't like something a reliable source says, then you solve that by presenting counterbalancing information from another reliable source. Otherwise, we engage in original research. We need an actionable problem upon which to base tags being added to articles: it can't just be that you don't like something a reliable source says. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the problem. Sandy 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

Can we get a brief summary of the basic POV problems, so other editors can attempt a compromise while mediation goes on ? I just ran through the entire article, cleaning up refs, and didn't find anything egregious. Sandy 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - in its current state I am fine with it. It is the reverts that Stevenzhu was doing throughout the day that I felt were egregious. LionO 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But, the POV tag was added by Smedley. We need to see what the concerns are. Sandy 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think at this time it is best to wait for Stephenzhu and Smedley to weigh in before we comment further. --Ideogram 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was added by user K13060 as far as I can tell. [74]. Why do you think it was Smedley? Is Smedley the same person as K13060? LionO 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not K13060, but I did add the tag. Smedley Hirkum 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: we are talking about different things. Sandy and I are referring to the NPOV tag, while I think you're referring to the contradiction tag. Smedley Hirkum 02:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My error - I was looking at the DLC conflict tag. Please ignore my comment. I am still remain fine with the article in its current content.LionO 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not the same as K13060. As for the NPOV tag, the situation is much better than it was before during the numerous revert wars. Through these wars I think we have improved the article. I think the tag can now be removed, but I think in order to best serve the readers, we should add a "criticism" section to make it clearer why he is in such a closely contested primary. I feel quite strongly that this will improve the article. This would be a neutral section--we would have responses by Lieberman as well as criticism. I also have other suggestions which I will list below. Smedley Hirkum 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that a criticism section would be redundant of what's described on the Connecticut U.S. Senate election, 2006 page, which already discusses criticism. A link from the Lieberman page to that page already exists. LionO 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I don't object to a criticism section, as long as all comments are properly sourced, and rebutted if/when required (and it should always be clear who is making the criticism, avoiding vague generalizations). But, if there is already criticism elsewhere, it can really get messy. Perhaps that can be solved by putting only enduring criticism of Lieberman on his personal page, while other issues that might not outlive the election can be put on that page? Just an idea -- not tied to it ... Sandy 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its opening a can of worms. Currently, within each section, there is positive and negative material. I think the criticism should remain on the 2006 campaign page. No need to rehash it here. Any criticism of Lieberman is currently being brought up in the current campaign. LionO 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think that Lieberman's page has to outlive the election. Sandy 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No question there. Which is why I am fine with it in its current state: the criticism, without being exaggerated is alluded to throughout the article. LionO 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just found some more vandalism that was missed before the semi-protection; the whole article should be checked. Sandy 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yipes - there was so much vandalism today, and with all the copy and paste reverts, I bet people delted it and then it wound up back in! LionO 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to go through and fix things. The health care section has a lot of it. Smedley Hirkum 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is back. Sandy 02:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, if he continues he will shortly be blocked. --Ideogram 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, I read it backwards. Bezalela was reverting vandalism that was left over. I've apologized on Bezalela's talk page, but hope s/he sees it. Sheesh. Sandy 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew! The vandals were crazy today - really your mistake is another one to blame on them - it's hard to keep things straight. LionO 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section straw poll

Let's run a quick straw poll to see where people stand on including a Criticism section.

Proposal: Include a Criticism section in this article to discuss criticism of Lieberman and his responses.

Support:

1. As long as all statements are thoroughly referenced, who levels the criticism is specified, balance is provided via rebuttal, and no vague generalizations.Sandy 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree entirely with Sandy above. Smedley Hirkum 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think the article reads best with just the facts - let the reader make up his or her mind. I also think that the criticism section would lead to overemphasizing things. I could see a separate page - once again, thoroughly referenced, with clear guidelines BEFORE the separate page is created as to who levels the criticism, rebuttal and no vague generalizations. See the Hillary Clinton page. It provides a link to the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page which lists criticism, but a criticism section does not appear on the main page, only the separate page. I would also want a distinction made between what goes on the Joe Lieberman controversies page and what goes on the 2006 CT Senate Election page, which right now is very pro-Lamont and serves as a Joe Lieberman criticism page. LionO 02:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this: We leave this article as it is, and add a criticism section which directs to a separate article about criticism, a la the Hillary article. This way, people will get a general impression of Joe by reading the article, but if they want more detail about why he's in such hot water they can read the separate criticism article. Smedley Hirkum 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with making a separate page. However, before such a page is made, I think clear guidelines should be established as to what is an acceptable source, what acceptable emphasis is, who levels criticism and how rebuttal will work. I also think that the [Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign, 2006] race page should be looked at which currently emphasizes criticism towards Lieberman with little to no rebuttal. I would want clear understanding of how this page would be different, and if it wouldn't be, then perhaps the [Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign, 2006] page should be looked at, too. LionO 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok my understanding of the dispute now is that we have agreed to leave this article mostly as is and put criticism discussion on either a new page or the Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign, 2006 page. I don't think it's necessary to hash out ground rules before making those changes; we can throw up a first draft and discuss it. --Ideogram 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with a first draft going up here before it goes "live." I think that at the root of this debate is what the 2006 Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign is for. Currently, it is very pro-Lamont and anti-Lieberman. LionO 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring discussion of that page in here. You might want to post a notice there asking people to join us. What is the link? --Ideogram 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem already, that I've had with other articles. We're now talking about 3 different pages: Lieberman, Criticism, and Election. It becomes an enormous task to keep up with all three. I'd feel better about criticism in one place or the other, but not a third article. I've been down that road before. Sandy 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think LionO was suggesting putting the criticism on the Election page. --Ideogram 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism should definitely not go in new article. That would be POV forking, which Wikipedia frowns on. IMO it should not go in the 2006 election article either, though that article could present more details of criticism that arose/arises during the election campaign. Like any politician who's been active for a long time, Lieberman has been subject to much criticism during that whole period, and the 2006 election is just one piece of it. Remember, for example, that's quite unusual for an entrenched incumbent to get a serious primary challenge. That could only happen because of deep-seated and widespread criticism going back to way before the 2006 election season launched. I'd say the biographical article should have a criticism section or describe criticism, but not over-emphasize the 2006 election period.

As for the "Election" article, I guess it's still shaping up; it's not very detailed. Sooner or later there should probably be a separate article purely about the Dem primary, but that should wait at least til after it's over, so it can be written retrospectively.

I don't think there's any requirement to cite all criticism to primary sources. Secondary sources are generally preferred, since it means independent publications have assessed the importance of the primary source material. Remember also that BLP is to make sure we don't libel anyone, or damage people who are relatively defenseless from errors we might make. It stemmed from the Seigenthaler incident, about a mostly-private individual, though it applies to everyone. When the subject is a major politician though, we need to be more concerned about outright malice, than about missing an error in a published news story if we haven't chased down the primary source docs behind it. Phr (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

For your reading pleasure, I will number my following two suggestions.

1. I think a Criticism section is necessary for this article. This section should of course be completely neutral, with responses from Lieberman along with criticism. I believe this will serve to educate the reader as to why Joe Lieberman is such a controversial figure in the Democratic party.

Concur Sandy

I think the criticism already appears on the page. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are instances where there is perceived criticism- such as, "in a controversial move" or "he was widely criticized"-- we should move those to the criticism section along with responses. However, if there are damaging facts like Lieberman voting for Jesse Helms' bill, those should not be moved, but should also be elaborated upon in the criticism section. I think this is fair, no? Smedley Hirkum 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

2. We should reduce the size of the 2006 senate race section--I believe it takes up way too much room. We should instead link to the article about the 2006 senate race. I think following suggestion #1 can help accomplish this task.

Concur Sandy 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Endorsements, ad material and timeline should be moved to the 2006 page. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Senate race and endorsements should stay in the article, in a short summary-like section linking off to the 2006 Senate election article. Eventually the election article may itself have to split into separate articles, but I don't think there should be a separate article just for endorsements. Phr (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3. We should try to reduce the size of the article. One good way I think we could do this is by making a separate article to replace the Endorsements section. The Endorsement section remaining in the Joe Lieberman article should read, "See article: List of endorsements for Joe Lieberman" or something to that effect. If you disagree here, then perhaps we could move the endorsements section to the bottom. Where it is now, it disrupts the flow of the article.

Concur In general, your suggestions go to making this a more enduring article about Lieberman himself, rather than the current election. Sandy 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - though Lamont's endorsements should be removed also and moved to the 2006 CT Senate page. I DO, however, think that endorsements can go in the positions sections if they are endorsements by major groups pertaining to the position. For example, an endorsement from the HRC helps clarify where Lieberman's positions are on gay right's. An endorsement from Naral and Planned Parenthood, but not NOW, clarifies on how he is perceived on abortion. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Smedley Hirkum 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what you guys think. Smedley Hirkum 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, it appears that we have narrowed down the discussion to one issue, having a separate criticism section or not. There are two parts to this, first how much of this information belongs on this page or can be moved to other pages, and second whether it should be in various parts of the article or separated out into its own section. --Ideogram 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't think we've narrowed it down to one issue. Stephenzhu has not arrived and I know he objects to the article in its current form. I also want mediation on the issue that we should all assume good faith of each other; I feel attacked on the talk page, frankly. LionO 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant for the moment, leaving out Stephenzhu. When he returns we can address his issues. We absolutely must all assume good faith; so far this discussion seems to be going well, if anyone fails to assume good faith, including Stephenzhu when he returns, I will warn them. --Ideogram 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. LionO 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements

I've deleted the endorsements section and directed readers to a new article I created on the topic: List of Endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate Race. Please check it out if you have the chance. I think it would be good to clarify who has endorsed Joe in the primary but will support Lieberman in the general election and who will support the nominee. If you could help out, I'd appreciate it. Smedley Hirkum 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put it back. We did not agree on this. LionO 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought we did agree. If you see above, I agreed with your statement about endorsements. If you still want me to revert, perhaps we can discuss. (It's just a lot of work to delete the article if we can solve our disagreements through discussion.) Smedley Hirkum 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page already - no need. I think that the endorsements - both Lieberman and Lamont endorsements should be removed and put not on a separate page, but the 2006 Connecticut U.S. Senate Page. I also think that not just endorsements should be removed, but discussions about ads and Lamont's positions. The Lieberman page needs only one short paragraph on the 2006 Campaign and then it should link to that page. HOWEVER, before this is done, the 2006 Campaign page needs to be looked at. Right now it is very pro-Lamont. LionO 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was confused as well, because I thought we had agreed. But I see what Lion is saying. Everything should be consolidated on the Elections page, as that is a logical place for all of it. This page should be mostly about Lieberman (in general), with all election-specific info consolidated and balanced on elections page. Sandy 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Sorry if I was confusing -- it's late. My apologies. LionO 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point of view, but I think that these lists of endorsements are so long that they should have their own pages which could be accessed through the 2006 elections page and through the lieberman page. Smedley Hirkum 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ah, Ok ... I'm neutral, then, as to where it ends up, and will leave that to all of you. I can see the advantages and disadvantages either way. Perhaps if it's on its own page, it will be useful in general elections? (Smedley, if we do end up not needing your new page, it's really easy to speedy delete an article if you're the author -- you just put a speedy tag on it as the author.) Sandy 03:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

seems to me that the list is over long (containing too many caveats) and should be moved to primary page. --Stephenzhu 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am bothered especially by the people section, saying should a Paris Hilton endorsement be included? or the other little know NJ/IL senator? --Stephenzhu 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean here about Paris Hilton? Also, senators should definitely be included, regardless of whether they are known or little known. (The IL senator, Obama, is very well known.) Smedley Hirkum 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(tag inserted by Phr (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)) Removed editprotect tag. Sandy 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The line saying "[a]ll of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators" have endorsed Lieberman is completely incorrect and needs to be changed as soon as possible. The source that's given – which is from Lieberman's campaign – doesn't even list half of the Democrats in the CGA. Aside from that, some of the CGA's most notable members, including House Majority Leader Chris Donovan and committee chairs Mary Ann Handley and Denise Merrill, have been been among Lamont's most vocal and public supporters. Can someone who is authorized to edit this page in its current state (if anyone) please remove that falsehood before it spreads to other sites? I understand how someone from out-of-state could've seen that list and thought it meant everyone – that's what campaign literature is supposed to do, right? – but it's completely false. Beginning 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is Election Day and this still remains in the article. Can someone please, please remove it? Aside from the fact that this article has the incredible power to sway votes in a democracy, it's making us look bad to have something so obviously incorrect in here. Beginning 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Can we get this down ASAP???

Smedley Hirkum 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes - Stephenzhu

Stephenzhu, can you please read this? I was hoping to convert the refs to cite.php (see Ned Lamont for a correctly referenced article), but just keeping them cleaned up here has proven to be a large task. Thanks, Sandy 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

won't using ref tag causing a over long ref list in the bottom of th page? --Stephenzhu 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights section

The current section is as follows.

Lieberman voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.[27] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."[28]

In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality."[29] Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have.[30] In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[31] Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV.[32] Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender.[33]

In August, 1994, Jesse Helms (R-SC) and Bob Smith (R- NH) proposed an amendment, S.AMDT.2434, to Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA), that is, S.1513, that would prevent federal funding for schools that "implement or carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle." This amendment would cut off funding for schools that teach tolerance of homosexuality or provide gay-sensitive counseling.[34][35][36] Lieberman voted for the amendment.[37] He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.[38][39][40][41]

In the previous discussion, LIonO mischaracterized the situation. One of the versions are listed. The fact is during the fenectic reverting several versions from my editing exists. The above is the one I am most satisfied with. For example, The following sentence, together with citation is wholly added by myself.

Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[31]

I deleted the other Lieberman HRC vote record since at one time LionO requested accurate vote record from every vote and I deem vote record from HRC does not meet LionO's own standard. I apologize for that.

--Stephenzhu 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely absurd. Stephenzhu - you wanted to use opinionated columnists or vague articles that did not reference dates or voting records. I requested voting records. I have provided voting records. All of my links are voting records. It does not matter if the voting records come from the HRC voting record page or the Senate voting record page - it's the same thing. Show me otherwise. There IS a difference between using voting records (which is what I am doing) and NOT using voting records (which is what you were doing) LionO 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WHOA there - this section is under mediation and you have no right to make changes. I am reverting back to the original. Do not make adjustments until it has been discussed and agreed upon. You have your chance to state your case. Do so. LionO 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any rule on no touching before mediation. You did reverting 20 times after you filed mediation, breaking to the so called rule. Please check my addition there, some of them you may want to retain, such as late-term abortion and minor parental consel--Stephenzhu 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Given how easily you are using talk pages and updated the main page (nearly 50 updates today - mostly controversial!) I can't believe that you think it's in good form to ignore what's going on in the talk pages, ignore Ideogram's generous help as unofficial mediator and ignore our discussions trying to achieve consensus and just do what you want to do. Please - somebody tell me where to post to request mediation! Stephenzhu - do not make controversial edits (see what Ideogram says above)until this has been hashed out. We are doing one issue at a time. Cut it out! LionO 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you call them controversial. Please be specific --Stephenzhu 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Senate Tenure

sandy, I changed the Senate Tenure 2nd paragraph which contains redundancy and inaccuracy.

When control of the Senate switched from Republicans to Democrats in June 2001, Lieberman became Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, with oversight responsibilities for a broad range of government activities. He is also a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and chair of its Subcommittee Clean Air, Wetlands and Private Property; the Armed Services Committee, where he chaired the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces and sits of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities; and the Small Business Committee. When Republicans gained control of the Senate in January 2003, Lieberman resumed his role as ranking minority member of the committees he had once chaired.[17]

first. the GAC chairmanship has been cover in the main article once (in homeland security section) and mentioned in the table on the bottom of the page. I think he is no longer chair of the Subcommittee Clean Air, Wetlands and Private Property and other subcommittee chair. the last sentence is ok but still redundant in the second half.

This is the new para. (I don't have the ranking minority member info, please provide it if you can find it)

Lieberman currently is a member of the Armed Services Committee, Environment Committee, Government Affairs Committee and Small Business Committee.[75] --Stephenzhu 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I am so sorry, but I reverted back to an original version. Stephenzhu, we are trying to seek consensus here -- you made SO MANY changes without discussion or consensus, that I had to revert. In the process, Sandy's excellent work was reverted to. Stephenzhu - stop. We are seeking agreement. Take your discussion here first and once agreement has been met, then changes can be made. You have no right to make so many changes without discussion first. LionO 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about reverting over me: I'll reconstruct anything important. It looks to me like Stephenzhu is not working on consensus. This needs to stop. Sandy 23:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did make many changes. Please discuss individual changes without reverting. Reverting is not helping. I put Clean Air Act up there, what right do you have to delete it. I alphabetize it, together with sandy. Please be respectful to other's work. --Stephenzhu 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

STEPHENZHU, STOP!

Stephenzhu: we are dealing with ONE ISSUE AT A TIME, as you can see from the exchange above. Discuss changes one issue at a time so that we can achieve consensus! This is the only way it will work!!! You CANNOT make 50+ major changes and then say "ok now let's discuss." I am reverting. LionO 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

really, 50+ major changes, I don't know I did that many. But I am sure some of the major changes you actually like, such as Clean Air Act, Missile Defense, Late-Term Abortion, Minor Abortion Parent Consent, what else? --Stephenzhu 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's stuff I like, but that's not the point. If you read the discussion above, we are dealing with one issue at a time. Please focus on the one above, as outlined by Ideogram. Right now on the table

1) the gay right's section (we need Ideogram's input) 2) the criticism/2006 section LionO 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

reverting is not helping, I am all for constructive discussion. On the gay rights section, I retained all the materials you want to retain. I only beefed up the Helmes section which i deem essential for balance. --Stephenzhu 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get the mediator back to figure this thing out. --Smedley Hirkum 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember there is still no mediation request filed, and Ideogram was just trying to help. If Stephenzhu is going to ignore mediation, it won't help. Smedley, are you in agreement with the massive changes made? Sandy 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Stephenzhu's revisions have been mostly good, but I do have a couple of problems. I'll list them below. 68.161.42.49 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (This was made by me, User:Smedley Hirkum)

first, I don't know how mediation works. second, where are the rules for mediation, third, does mediation means I cannot edit articles? --Stephenzhu 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation means that someone helps us talk it through. Ideogram was serving as an unofficial mediator and will continue to do so. I would like to file for mediation - but I don't know where I submit the request. Regardles, YES mediation means that you TALK IT THROUGH and that you don't decide to make changes unilaterally. We look at issues one by one. Consequently, I will go through and revert to the original page. You have two options: 1) follow this line of thinking -- discuss one issue at a time or 2) get into an edit war with me. The latter is stupid. LionO 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to ask Ideograph to check on every addition I made on this page. Since the mediation (unofficial) began, I have not deleted material without absolutely sure of inaccuracy. --Stephenzhu 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It is. My error. I copied and pasted the wrong link. Having said that, you must provide the same for domestic parter benefits. Other sources have been deleted - they add nothing. I also am adding that he voted with 29 other Dems for the bill. As well as including htat he voted with 11 other Dems for the amendment. This is what was said in my post before you decided to delete it. NO MORE POSTS UNTIL IDEOGRAM ARRIVES!!!! LionO 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the bill is a school bill, has little to do GL issue. I am talking about the amendment here. Focusing on the issue. --Stephenzhu 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Stephenzhu's corrections

1. Stephen added this in the intro: "On cultural issues and foreign policy, Lieberman is more conservative than most Democrats." I think we should change that to a general "On some isses, Lieberman is generally considered as more conservative than most Democrats." This is because I don't think that Lieberman's conservatism is limited to cultural issues and foreign policy. For example, in economic issues and in issues of presidential power, Lieberman has generally been conservative.

In principle, I agree with your wording. In fact, we shouldn't say anything that isn't backed up by a reliable source, or we're engaging in original research. Is there a source, and what does it say? Sandy 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality." I don't know if Stephenzhu added this, but this sentence makes it unclear if Lieberman was scored as 88th out of 100 senators, or was given a rating of 88%.

3. I think the Jesse Helms section still needs work. I think it should be reduced to one sentence but we should keep the "He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees."

I haven't read this, but I sense some agenda-driven editing by Stephen. Since he rearranged all the sections (alphabetically), he essentially made it impossible for us to check diffs, and I don't feel like re-reading the entire article, which I just did yesterday. Your proposed sentences sound balanced to me. Sandy 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

4. I still think we should add a criticism section to this article. It doesn't belong on the 2006 campaign page because criticism for Lieberman has existed before 2006 and will exist after 2006 as well.

Let me know what you think.

I'm still in favor of keeping criticism here (rather than a separate article, which creates a nightmare). Why don't you propose the Criticism text here, and we can see what we think? Sandy 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

--68.161.42.49 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (This was made by me, User:Smedley Hirkum)

In general, I think Stephen should read what Ideogram wrote above, for example, Please do not make controversial edits during this discussion, edit-warring is not productive. The "I don't know what mediation is" statement doesn't register with me, considering the long talk page entries here. Sandy 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen made a WHOLE LOT of controversial edits. I hate to do it, but I am going to revert to where the page was before Ideogram arrived. I don't buy the "I don't know what mediation is" statement either. I do, however, need to know where to post a mediation request -- I would like to do that, but I can't find the particular spot to post it. Stephen, you must stop making controversial edits. I'm sure you did some good stuff, but until you decide that you want to work with people, we aren't going to get anywhere. LionO 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why they are controversial. I am putting Lieberman's accurate and entire quote with context there and you still call them controversial. You cannot censor materials like this --Stephenzhu 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization. Mostly of my edits are hardly controversial. You have to assume good faith, remember. --Stephenzhu 04:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More to add to my complaint

I am afraid I have more to add to my complaint. In spite of Ideogram's help to get Smeadly, Stephentzu and I to come to a consensus, Stephentzu has decided to ignore the helpful, civil conversations between Smeadly and I and added nearly 50 edits today to the page - mostly controversial. I am appauled by his bad form - he has adopted a "I don't care what anyone else thinks - I will do things my way" attitude. While some of his edits are fine, most are controversial and are in need of discussion. I have gone through and done some major reverts to where the page was before he decided to go his own way. I want to file for official mediation - would somebody tell me where to post? If Stephentzu continues to act accordingly, I want him banned. LionO 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your so called "controversial change" before deleting them completely. No reason given is not helping --Stephenzhu 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you wish to ADD something - you DISCUSS it first -- we come to a consensus, and then it goes up. You don't put something up and then say "huh? but I proved it!" That's not how it works, especially while we are under unofficial mediation (and hopefully soon official). You must wait. Cut it out.

Regarding the HIV imigrant/Domestic Partnership issue - your sources - the articles - do not give voting record, when the vote took place, nor the context. The senate page that you have linked to is not for this particular bill and does not give the correct informationLionO 04:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

there is your charge again. Check the citation, I put up the voting record for HIV one already. I cannot find the DP one but that cannot be used against me since Advocate already said so. --Stephenzhu 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The senate page is not for the HIV bill. Check again. Since the advocate does not give voting record or even the year that it took place or the context of the bill, it cannot be used. You must achieve consensus. Wait for mediation. Cut it out!

I argue it is. Please check again. --Stephenzhu 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't demand an apology on this. But I think an apology will be nice on the HIV immigrant issue. --Stephenzhu 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding this dispute to the mediation cabal. Look at the top of the page for the link. --Smedley Hirkum 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Smedly -- much appreciated (I'd be interested in what the page is, for future reference.) Stephentzu, mediation has now been requested - no further edits other than repairing vandalism, grammar or spelling - if any are done, they should be reverted. Not even "factual" edits should be added. Wait for mediation. LionO 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the link look like, cannot find it. can you post the text? --Stephenzhu 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Manson, not the charlie one

currently the entertainment industry section has

In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest ever promoted by a mainstream record company".

It's not sourced. The source is contained in the Manson wiki, which is an interview. I assumed good faith from the other wiki page. --Stephenzhu 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, since it is a quote and not a description (as is the case with FEPA) use the source as a footnote here. LionO 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, The PBS info has not been discussed on this page - wait for Ideogram and we can discuss it. I am not saying that it doesn't belong, but I want the time to study it before it gets posted. It is not fair to post without consensus. LionO 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

don't know how to add the footnote. Be my guest and feel free to add it. PBS is non-controversial. --Stephenzhu 05:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

misc, facts or controversial.

here is the misc section

Misc

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish). [76][77] He voted for United States to pay arrears to United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [78]

These materials are neutral at best, please pinpoint that why they are controversial. --Stephenzhu 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are finally posting suggestions here for discussion. We have a lot to discuss. I suggest that we follow Ideogram's advice:

1) No controversial posting at this time 2) Deal with one controversial issue at a time

I suggest we first start with the gay right's issue. Then move to smeadly's suggestion of a criticism page. From there we can discuss other sections. Let's move one by one and NOT POST EDITS until we have reached consensus on those pages LionO 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what specific issue you have with my edit? --Stephenzhu 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be edits plural -- right? Stephenzhu, it is late - can we agree, now that official mediation has been requested, to leave the page as is until our mediator arrives? LionO 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, didn't see your truce offer. I am all for it if you leave the Helmes alone. --Stephenzhu 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

was that your message, didn't sign, don't know who that is. --Stephenzhu 05:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have no objection to the Helms section - it contains everything that you want. Please leave it alone. I am not trying to delete it, but I want it written fairly with appropraite sources. Since I was the one who requested help, and Ideogram arrived, it should be my edit - frankly, a consensus edit - that remains until mediation arrives. Wait for mediation. LionO 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

even though I do have objection on the helms section (not enough context, not balanced) let's compromise, give or take. I am all good if you leave the Helms alone. Others you can take. --Stephenzhu 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

fogot to mention. I won't move if you don't change the contents. --Stephenzhu 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um that's for the mediator to decide. Not you. LionO 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I want mediation. Remember, I originally did not think the Helms section belonged. I compromised and came up with the compromise version. You have not compromised at all. The compromise version should remain until mediation. Who knows! Maybe you will win! Beforewarned: know that an outcome of mediation has been to bad one or both parties who engage in edit wars. The compromise write-up should remain until the mediator arrives. LionO 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made a good faith offer to stop the editor war. You rejected so I have no choice but to revert the section to a more balanced version. You may find it controversial but you have failed to provide reason that it doesn't belong there. --Stephenzhu 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No you have not made good faith. You made 50+ edits today while last night four editors were having a wonderful discussion trying to reach consensus. I even said that we should wait for you to arrive before making a decision. Instead, in spite of Ideogram saying that controversial edits should wait, you made plenty. Unacceptable. Leave the page the way it was when ideogram arrived. You achieved NO CONSENSUS on any of your edits. Wait for mediation LionO 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

look at the contents, not the action. Are those contents made in good faith? Please be specific on a bad faith example. --Stephenzhu 05:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

name calling and personal attack.

LionO agained mounted a personal attack on me.

05:32, 4 August 2006 LionO (Talk | contribs) (liar - you reverted the entire page. it wasn't just helmes. WAIT FOR MEDIATION!

--Stephenzhu 05:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait for mediation. LionO 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep a positive attitude here! --Smedley Hirkum 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Hard to do, but you are right! LionO 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

hard to be up when I am being called a "liar". need some X. --Stephenzhu 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation. I think we may have to wait a day or so to have our problems addressed, but here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04_Joe_Lieberman

I hope that we'll all stay civil and work with the mediator. We're all trying to accomplish the same thing: making this article better. All we're disagreeing upon is how to go about doing that.

Here's the link to the Mediation cabal for future reference: Mediation Cabal. This is just the general page. Our personal link is above. You might wanna poke around there to get a feeling of what this process is about.

--Smedley Hirkum 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Smedley, thank you - you have been very helpful. I think things have gone quite uncivil. I wish Stephen would agree to no major edits until mediation arrives, but that doesn't seem to be the case. LionO 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks. can we add contents to the mediation page? didn't find the specific policy --Stephenzhu 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot add contents to the article in question while you are waiting for mediation. We need a mediator to help us. LionO 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

that is a bummer. Since some of the requested info is dated. e.g. LionO is now OK with HIV immigrant but not DC DP issue. --Stephenzhu 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. See below--I'm adding an NPOV tag to the section so that people know there are problems with it. --Smedley Hirkum 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lion, while you're waiting for a mediator to take the case, you can add comments to the talk page of the actual mediation. Sandy 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Smedley, I see there was a lot of edit warring over night. Is there anything you and I can work on here on the talk page until the page is unprotected? Sandy 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the mediator arrives

And in order to stop your bickering, I will add an NPOV tag over the Helms section. This means that, whatever version is there, the reader will be aware that there is some dispute over the POV of that section. Let's not fight over this. I'm adding the NPOV tag to that section and let's not touch it until the mediator helps us work things out. That means all of us. Think about it: how many people are going to read the Helms section before the mediator arrives? Two? Three? It's not worth this fighting. --Smedley Hirkum 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this BUT Stephenzhu is changing the whole page back to the edits he did today while Ideogram was working with us. We are talking near 50 edits, many of which are controversial. I reverted the page back to what it was when Ideogram was working with us, but Stephenzhu refuses to allow this. He even removes the NPOV tag above his own work LionO 05:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry didn't see you there, I will revert it back.

Thanks, Stephen. --Smedley Hirkum 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it. And I reinserted smedley's tag which stephen deleted. Glad that we have agreed to wait until mediation LionO 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the npov tag in the entire gay rights section, which I think more appropriate. sorry about the confusion. --Stephenzhu 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looks like this may turn out quite well. As for me, I'm going to sleep. --Smedley Hirkum 05:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what happens to the npov tag in the front though. who removed it? --Stephenzhu 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't touch it so Smedley, please put the tag back in. --Stephenzhu 05:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

UGH - Stephen - YOU are the one who is removing it every time you decide that you want to copy and paste all your edits onto the page. That wasn't part of the agreement! STOP! Smedley inserted all appropriate tags on the page as it was when Ideogram arrived. Your edits since then should not go up. They will be part of the mediation LionO 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa whoa! Let's all keep a cool head here. Let me look at it.Smedley Hirkum 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

since I won't touch it for now, I will give Smedley a few minutes to put the tag back in to the proper tag-less version. --Stephenzhu 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

STEPHEN, LOOK AT THE ARTICLE. It is there. It only disappears when you try to reinsert your personal edits. The tag is there. No need to touch anything! The tag is there in the gay right's section where it should be. LionO 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I told you I won't touch it for now. but you are making things worse by putting a very old version which is not even corrently format version up there. --Stephenzhu 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No Stephen, that's the version as it is minus the edits you did today that need to be mediated. I am not making it worse. Once you heard about mediation being filed, you reverted it to all the edits you did today. You keep reverting to a version without tags, but WITH 50 some edits you did today, without discussing with anyone. Glad you are not going to touch it again, though I'm not sure why you continued to revert to that version several times, even after Smedly posted the tag and you agreed not to.LionO 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

LionO, I suggest that we leave the article as Stephen last left it. He may have done controversial work, but I looked through his edits and I believe most of the work actually was just article maintenance that did not affect content. Also, I'm trying to get us to stop arguing. We can read through the article with the mediator and bring up any problems we might have with Stephen's version. Also, with the NPOV tags there, everyone reading will take this article with a grain of salt anyway, so we shouldn't fight so much about how the article will appear before the mediator arrives. Do you disagree with this? Smedley Hirkum 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm really trying to say here is that it doesn't matter what the article looks like before the mediator arrives. We should waste time arguing over this. --Smedley Hirkum 06:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's out of your hands. Because of massive revert warring, I've protected this article (with whatever version was in front of me, I don't much care about this subject). Please resolve your differences instead of revert warring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great -- thank you. Much appreciated. I look forward with discussing each section individually and coming to agreement that falls within Wiki policy. Many thanks LionO 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you should probably both read up on the three-revert rule; having scores and scores of reverts in succession like this is really disruptive, as I stated on your respective talk pages several minutes ago. I brought AMIB in because I saw how out-of-control this was, but in the future, you should try to resolve edit wars the easy way: Just leave the page be while waiting for a mediator. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To check

An edit in the midst of the editwarring that should be checked: [79] Sandy 12:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, if you need an edit on a protected page, use {{editprotected}} on its talk page with a section describing what needs editing. I've looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=67471401&oldid=67470435 and it appears correct, at least according to the citations, Lieberman does support stem cell research according to his voting record and that cite. What is the issue? -- Avi 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi. I don't know Lieberman's record, so I wasn't sure if there was an issue. I was just trying to see if anyone else's edits got mixed up in the edit war. Thanks for checking, Sandy 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

{editprotected} Can we eliminate this typo in the lead? It's unsightly to have a typo in the lead, particularly just before an election. (double brackets at the end of the reference).

He also received a lifetime rating of 17% from the American Conservative Union.[4]]

TIA, Sandy 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the typo.--Commander Keane 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Lieberman's Political Record

This is the deleted sections.

Gay Rights

In August, 1994, Jesse Helms (R-SC) and Bob Smith (R- NH) proposed an amendment, S.AMDT.2434, to Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA) – S.1513 – that would prevent federal funding for schools that "implement or carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle." This amendment would cut off funding for schools that teach tolerance of homosexuality or provide gay-sensitive counseling.[80][81][82] Lieberman voted for the amendment, saying "society should not be promoting the homosexual lifestyle".[83][84] He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.[85][86][87][88]

This should absolutely be included in the main article. The fact that this is not included goes to show that this article is biased. Agrippina Minor

Entertainment Industry

In a PBS interview about Lieberman's battle over Hollywood's racier material, Lieberman accuse the "Hollywood is still giving us the same violent content, is still going great guns to mass-market murder."[89] In 1995, Lieberman joined William Bennett and others to get Time Warner to drop a "gangsta rap" record label.[90][91]

In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest ever promoted by a mainstream record company". As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board.

copy edit - first WP:MOS calls for capitalization of the first word only in a heading. I have repeatedly had to change this in this article. It should be Gay rights and Entertainment industry

In a PBS interview about Lieberman's battle over Hollywood's racier material, Lieberman accuse said the that, "Hollywood is still giving us the same violent content, is still going great guns to mass-market murder."[92] In 1995, Lieberman joined William Bennett and others to get Time Warner to drop a "gangsta rap" record label.[93][94]

(don't say "and others" unless you can tell us who the "others" are.)

In the late 1990s, Lieberman was vocal in lobbying lobbied for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest ever promoted by a mainstream record company". As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I don't know what "inspired the advent of" means, but would need to see the reference for wording.

Misc

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish). [95][96] He voted for United States to pay arrears to United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [97]

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish).[98][99] He voted for the United States to pay arrears to the United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [100]

Are you serious that the references or Clinton called the FALN an "independence group?" Sounds POV to me, but I haven't checked the reference.

I don't know what "without setting conditions in law" means.

I don't know how the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty fits into that sentence. Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If he won the vice presidency, he would have to resigned his Senate seat. Since the Republican Connecticut governor would presumably appoint a Republican senator, causing a possible 51-49 split in the senate in favor of the Republicans or a 50-50 split (as it turned out) by the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Dick Cheney. While considered quite controversial, he did win the Senate re-election easily. [101][102]

If he won the vice presidency, he would have had to resigned his Senate seat. Since the Republican Connecticut governor would presumably have appointed a Republican senator, causing a possible 51-49 split in the senate in favor of the Republicans or a 50-50 split (as it turned out) by the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Dick Cheney. (that is not a complete sentencew, so I don't know what it says.) While considered quite controversial, he did win the Senate re-election easily. [103][104]

What is considered quite controversial ??? Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

feel free to criticize. --Stephenzhu 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to read back through hundreds of edit reverts: can you possibly 1) copy edit that content and reference it, and 2) give us under your proposal what LionO's proposal is? That would help us advance things along here. Sandy 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

not sure got what you mean, the latest version I've done is [105]. I put all the reference there. LionO's proposal is the current version, which is mostly a version with reduced length. --Stephenzhu 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put my suggested copyedits above, and then bring over LionO's version for comparison: I honestly don't know the two different versions, what with all the edit warring. Sandy 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added copy edit suggestions and questions above -- maybe you can modify your text here, so it will be ready when protection is lifted. Now, can someone put LionO's proposed text under it, for comparison? Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the entertainment board ref is [106]. The problem is that LionO consider everything controversial and want all kind of refs. He never checked the materials he himeself put on the page which is favorable to liberman using the same standard. I already asked him numerous times which are controversial and he has refused to answer it. --Stephenzhu 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case (I haven't seen the others), LionO is 100% correct. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, and not a reliable source. It merely reflects what someone added to Wiki at some point, when answers.com took a picture of it. You've got to stick with WP:RS. That's why I keep running through the refs, since this is BLP. When I checked before your edit spree, all of the sources were reliable. If this is what LionO is objecting to, he's correct. Sandy 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is controversial, what was in there was a conensus version chosen to appease LionD. Time to tell LinoD to go to fucking hell. Blah42 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

reverted vandalism

Stephenzhu, regarding the question you left on my talk page, please see: User talk:83.52.119.23 and User talk:83.52.113.169. Sandy 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

got it. didn't know the history. --Stephenzhu 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request declined

Stephenzhu, since your request was QUICKLY denied, I am deleting your paragraph here, per WP:BLP, as explained on the mediation case. You cannot make unfounded damaging allegations about a living person, and they can be deleted from talk pages. I also fail to see any evidence. Sandy 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean unfounded allegation? my allegation is founded and has probable cause and reasonable suspcion. --129.10.56.164 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the unclear terminology: I meant no proof or reliable source, as in WP:BLP. I didn't mean to overstate the case: just chose the wrong word. Sandy

I checked WP:BLP which has no specific policy on deleting my request page. How quickly the request is denied has no importance here (that should be considered a random event). I request a revert. LionO does not even care since he already achieved his purpose (with no mediated showing up in nearly 24 hours) and the primary is 3 days away. --Stephenzhu 04:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you: no one deleted your request. LionO may not care, but I do, if talk pages violate WP:BLP by putting out claims that could negatively affect living persons. BLP says to delete them if they aren't referenced. It's still on the mediation and on the request check, just not on Lieberman's page. LionO did not achieve the page protection: you both did. You both violated the 3RR rule, more than once, and you both could have been blocked from editing, so it's best not to complain about the status. Sandy 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

someone deleted my LionO? liberman staffer para. that should be reverted. --Stephenzhu 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

how does questioning if one is a lieberman staff damaging. a staffer is not something people are ashamed of, by all means. --Stephenzhu 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

look, nobody is going to care about the page after the primary (if lieberman wins), if lieberman lose, this page will be lively until nov. --Stephenzhu 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

finally, I won't touch the talk/mediation page anymore. this wiki has failed to achieve its purpose. LionO won by his tenaciy, as always. I lost. -Stephenzhu 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The page was protected because BOTH of you engaged in edit warring. The page was not blocked because of the mediation. This page will exist on Wiki forever: Lieberman is an important political figure regardless of the outcome of this election. You cannot make claims without reliable sources that could negatively affect him in his article or on talk pages. Sandy 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy is correct; both of you engaged in egregious edit warring (far, far, far beyond what is permitted), and neither of you thus has any claim to a preferential version of this article. If you're only editing this page in an attempt to help or hurt Lieberman politically, then...Well, like AMIB, I frankly don't much care one way or the other about which version stands in the meantime. If you see this page as an electoral matter for you to influence, then I'm afraid you're editing for all the wrong reasons. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've thought on this overnight, and want to add on to Emufarmers' comments. Stephenzhu, you claim no political interest in this article, but you come across as notably upset by LionO's version, so there's a contradiction there.

I also think it was unfair of me to blame you and LionO equally for the page protection. Smedley, LionO and I all entered into a consensual process, which you refused to respect. You appear to be maintaining that position, with your statements above. I believe LionO was justifiably unhinged by your insertion of hundreds of edits while refusing to discuss them on the talk page or in the mediation. Now that I've seen you are not using reliable sources, and not apparently understanding the strong need for reliable sources in biographies of living persons, I further understand LionO's upset.

Let me ask you something: If you say that "Lieberman's critics assert..." is it not fair then to use a site critical of Lieberman as a source? And if something is factual, but a site reports it because of its opposition to Lieberman, why does that need to be removed?-KP 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The admins reviewing this case were very generous in not blocking you both from editing. The question now is, when Protection is removed, do you see the need for reaching consensus so as not to harm Wiki? If you don't, I support the admins leaving this page protected as long as necessary. Like them, I don't care which version is up, because I have yet to understand the content dispute. I also don't think people come to Wikipedia to decide for whom to vote; if that is your reason for editing, you should get a blog.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: entries here need to endure. When dealing with a BLP, high standards must be in place. My role here (and on Lamont, as well) was to periodically review the sources and make sure they were reliable. Have you thoroughly read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:3RR? Please understand that violations of BLP are not subject to 3RR. Criticism about a living person can be deleted as often as it is inserted if it doesn't have a reliable source. That means, blogs, answers.com, etc. You need to source criticism to, for example, NY Times, Hartford Courant, .gov sites, Washington Post, New Haven Register, etc. Not blogs, not partisan or personal websites. I won't engage in edit warring if you insert information based on sources that are not reliable: I will ask admins to review your contributions if you don't come to consensus, mediate in good faith, and respect the consensual process that Smedley, LionO and I started.

Like the admins, I don't really care which version of this page is up; I'm concerned that good faith editing will resume once the page is unprotected. Can you give us your thoughts, Stephenzhu? If you agree to work towards consensus, perhaps the admins will lift the protection. With hindsight, it appears to me that as soon as we dealt with the vandals via semi-protection, you assumed ownership of the article, making whatever edits you wanted, while the rest of us were working towards consensus.

Sandy 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I agree that LionO is not a reasonable person. He removed a conensus version of Lieberman running for the VP and Senate at the same time that was specifically chosen to appease him. We shouldn't let one person be the Lieberman wiki page dictator. Blah42 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to come from out of my "Wikipedia retirement home" to also add that I also found that LionO is not a reasonable person. He's the kind of highly biased editor that leaves Wikipedia open to charges that anyone can "create" truth. I left because of his actions and that at least one Wikipedian largely defended him. If his actions are acceptable, Wikipedia is as unreliable as its critics say.

Two key pieces of evidence as to this are (if this is even still possible to find) if you look at his first version of the changes to the article that he made. That version looked like it had been created by Lieberman's press secretary. No matter how well-sourced, anything that was at all critical of Lieberman he removed (some stuff, not added by me, was not sourced; and had he removed only that, it wouldn't have bothered me. Had he added some sourced pro-Lieberman material, but left the sourced negative info, I'd even agree that it was called for).

He doesn't compromise to look for accuracy; he gives only as much in compromise as he feels he has to. Secondly, his account is a "single purpose account." I don't think he's edited a single non-Lieberman related article.

I have my own biases, wanting to see Lieberman lose. And yes, probably most editing this article a lot now have a view on the election (and thus a bias). A big difference, at least with me and I think with the others who have warred with LionO, is that my concern was that the article not favor Lieberman. LionO doesn't just want to make sure it's not unfair to Lieberman, but wants it to favor him as much as possible-- and LionO does act like he owns the page.

As to the charge of LionO being on Lieberman's staff, I have no idea whether he is or not; but especially when I listed exactly where I was coming from and my biases and challenged him to do the same (which he refused), I have the feeling that whatever the truth is about him would hurt his credibility-- although, to his credit, he could just have lied and he didn't do that, either.-KP 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Weicker

Weicker was a liberal Republican. He was RINO before RINO was uncool. He was not a moderate.--69.177.44.183 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Work which can be done while page is protected

Considering discussions above of WP:RS and WP:BLP, one thing that can be done while the page is protected is to go through every reference cited to make sure BLP is respected and the sources say what they purport to say. LionO, are you still here? Sandy 17:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LinonD

The Lieberman running for VP and Senate at the same time section was specifically chosen to appease you, there are many more things that could have gone there, but they were neutered into a much more lame version to appease you, oh Lieberman wiki page dictator. Yet, you still took this version out. You do not negotiate in good faith, and should not have ultimate authority over what goes into this page. I could revert, but knowing you, you'll threaten to have me banned for reverting your dumbass 3 times. Thanks for making this primary so personal, now I'm really hoping that your campaign loses. Blah42 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman mediation

Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this case. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman. I suggest that interested parties use the discussion page there to hammer out a resolution. In sum, my suggestions are:

• A rigorous level of citation in this article.
• The hammering out of contentious issues, including the wording of particular sections or paragraphs, on the talk page.
• Balancing viewpoints on votes and other issues in the article, using WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as guidelines.
• Editors refrain from focussing on the identity of users (unless there are obvious sockpuppetry allegations) and focus instead on content.
• That material relevant to the 2006 election campaign be included here, in keeping with the precedent of articles on other senatorial candidates. Fishhead64 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fishhead64 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lift of protection

I'm in no way part of the ongoing disputes that embroil this page. This page will most likely see a lot of traffic soon, so it should be cleaned up. His full name needs to be added, and the links should probably use the new standard, <ref> tags. --MZMcBride 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If edit protection is lifted, semi-protection may still be needed. Even before the dispute between LionO and Stephenzhu, the article was getting slammed by vandalism and was semi-protected. There is still so much active work on the article, that I have hesitated to update to cite:php with ref tags. I would like to do it when things settle down. What is the exact full name that needs to be added, so an admin can do it while under edit protection? Sandy 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

His full name is Joseph Isadore "Joe" Lieberman. --MZMcBride 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone says his birth year is wrong? Talk:Joe Lieberman#Year of Birth. Sandy 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

---

LionO and Stephenzhu haven't edited in the past couple days. Should we request backing off to semi-protection at WP:RFPP and see what happens? I think total unprotection before Wednesday (or maybe even before the end of the week) or so would invite another vandal-fest. Phr (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that (backing off to semi-protection) but don't have time to request it. The problem is, the article may get a flurry of activity, and someone will need to monitor for vandalism and BLP – I'm not sure I have time this week. It troubles me that neither of them has responded to the mediation, or attempted to resolve any of the pending issues above. That would seem to provide a basis for blocking them if they again engage in edit warring. Do you have time to post the request?Sandy 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean me.... I don't have time to list them for blocking. It seems a like a reasonable solution is that if the page were unlocked and only these two specific users were in an edit war, that they could be blocked from editing this page. I'm going to list this page for unprotection. --MZMcBride 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN report

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/07/connecticutsenate.ap/index.html Sandy 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sore Loserman

Looks like Leiberman is on his way out. Ha Ha Ha! Good riddance, DINO!

Year of Birth

Not sure if this has been addressed but someone changed Lieberman's birth year to 1922. I think this is a case for unprotection to correct the year back to 1942.--RexRex84 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Phr (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive Rights

This appears in Lieberman's biography:

In March 2006, according to the The New Haven Register, when asked about the approach of the Catholic hospitals on contraceptives for rape victims, Lieberman said he believes Catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.[69]

I suggest this be deleted or rewritten and moved to the election section. It is absurd and disproportionate to include in the story of Lieberman's life; the bills were in the CT state legislature, not Congress, and he had no vote. Two proposals on this matter were discussed in two committees and died. One state legislator, a Lamont supporter BTW, described the bill as a violation of (Catholic) religious freedom. If wiki wants a full blown discussion of the bills and their flaws so be it, but this entry is political and biased, and misrepresents the policy implications of actual proposed legislation. Lieberman's throwaway quote, which was certainly very insensitive to victims, still does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaliviaplurabelle (talk • contribs)

The quote absolutely does belong in his biography, since 1) it expresses a distinctive viewpoint that differentiates Lieberman from most other politicians; and 2) it outraged a lot of people and may have been the last straw that finishes off his Senate career. Right now it's in the section about reproductive rights, which I think is where it belongs, but it's very significant to the 2006 campaign and probably rates a mention there too. I'm not sure what point is being made about Greenwich Hospital, but if it can be explained more clearly and cited, then it might be suitable for adding to the article. Phr (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I changed that, too much information. I never edited before so I don't know what I'm doing really. But - Your distinctive viewpoint argument is debatable since bills proposed in two different committees failed. And it may be that exit polls will show that that remark hurt him, but so far you don't know that, and the polls show that overwhelmingly the war is the issue. Certainly the remark was stupid, insensitive, and uncharacterisitcally rash, and his critics did seize on it. Suggested language:

In 2006, a controversy erupted in the Connecticut state legislature when the Hartford Archdiocese, in response to legislation mandating that hospitals provide contraceptives to rape victims on request, forbade Catholic hospitals from dispensing the medication. One proposal, that would have denied energy funds to those hospitals, which are all in poor cities, drew strong criticism from legislators and failed in the Appropriations Committee. Lieberman, who had no vote in the matter, sided with the archdiocese and said he believes Catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.[69]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaliviaplurabelle (talk • contribs)

The background about the legislative bill is worthwhile; I'd say the phrasing about the hospitals being in poor cities sounds a little too much like political spin. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean--that it's ok to force pregnancy on poor women even if it's not ok for rich ones? Yes, explaining the political reaction in the 2006 campaign would be worthwhile. I think it was instrumental in several of Lamont's endorsements (like Connecticut's branch of NOW) and it got a lot of people angry at the national NARAL and Planned Parenthood organizations, which supposedly did their endorsements by a formula based purely on legislative votes. Nobody knows what's going to happen in the election (I'd say it's a toss-up), but without those endorsements Lamont could never have had a chance.

Btw, welcome to Wikipedia (I'll leave a welcome template on your user page); be aware that you've started out in one of the more hotly contested areas of the encyclopedia and that other parts are more peaceful; but have fun editing regardless. Please sign your posts with four tilde characters (~~~~), which will show up as your username and a timestamp, like this: Phr (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.I always read, I just have an interest in universal health care and am worried about institutions that serve the poor getting caught up in the politics and was concerned that this issue was highlighted.

There is the politics and the policy. Politics: That remark to me is a bizarre example of a pro choice legislator who was known for being temperate running his mouth when he didn't have to - just like the WSJ remark about undermining the president at your peril. That is a story. He didn't have to stick his nose in it.

But the legislative proposal set aside $$ million for energy costs for hospitals and denied it to hospitals that don't dispense the pill. The policy effect was to deny $$ to some of the poorest hospitals, who serve the poorest and given new $$ to richer hospitals - that is not spin. Even those who agree with the mandate had problems with the way it was done. And totally FUBAR because the Catholic Church doesn't fund any of those hospitals, the bishop was playing to the Vatican. The Catholic hospitals were demonized and caught in the middle. They all dispensed those pills (except in Waterbury) but once the bill was filed they were exposed. FUBAR. annalivia 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)annaliviaplurabelleannalivia 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

a small grammar change

Hello. about the intro, "the first Jew". Uh, can someone please change it to something better? like, "he is the first jewish senator" or something? Saying "jew" just sounds wrong on a encylopedia. dposse 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with saying "Jew"? Joe Lieberman is a Jew. What's the difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" that makes it non-encyclopedic? --Age234 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just not proper grammar. dposse 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly proper grammar. What in the world are you talking about?

Yeah, not sure what dposse is getting at. "Lieberman was the first Jew nominated for Vice President of the United States by a major party." Take out Jew and put in any other noun and it still makes perfect sense.  ??? -Age234 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

editprotected

The link Connecticut U.S. Senate election, 2006 should be changed to Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. 68.39.174.238 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Campaign website down, claimed hacked

Could someone add a note that the campaign website is currently offline, and the Lieberman campaign is claiming it was hacked? [107] - O^O

I just saw this on MSNBC. I agree, it should be added to the article. [108] dposse 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

He's claiming it was hacked. Others are pointing out that the original page that replaced his website suggests it's simply a case of Leiberman's campaign not paying the bills.

And several news agencies have reported it, including MSNBC, Yahoo News, the LA Times, ect. The fact that it is offline on the day of the primary speaks for itself. dposse 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, I'm not claiming to know the truth of the situation. I'm merely pointing out that others have disputed Lieberman's claims on the basis that the page which initially replaced the site suggested it had been shut down because the bills hadn't been paid, which obviously can happen. I just think it's important to make clear that Leiberman is claiming his site had been hacked, not that it is definately a fact that his site has been hacked.

I second that it should be mentioned. I saw it first on FOX news, then visited the website myself. Interestingly, though, the "Under Construction" template on display on FOX News and on the actual website appear to be different.--Zaorish

We're talking about a United States senator, who is fighting for the future of his political career in the 2006 Connecticut Primary. Think about it. Why would senator Joe Lieberman not pay for the website of his campaign? He has plenty of money. This is an obvious hack. dposse 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be an oversight by one of his staff. I do think it is most likely a hack, but I don't think that should be asserted as a fact on his Wiki page. At present, these are still claims by Lieberman, even if they seem credible. Better simply to note that Lieberman's site appears likely to have been hacked and that Lieberman himself is claiming that. --195.93.21.37 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The page replacing his site has apparently changed several times. As I pointed out, earlier today there was a page there implying the site had been shut down because of Leiberman's campaign not paying the bills.

Whoever you are, do you have evidence for this? because all media reports that i've seen have said that the website has been hacked. dposse 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on various liberal webblogs, such as Daily Kos. I'm not saying they are right in asserting that the original template indicated Liberman hadn't paid his bills, I'm just pointing out that commentators are disputing his claims about hacking on that basis. --195.93.21.37 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, Daily Kos is now claiming it's Lieberman's host, not his own website, which is the problem, casting doubt on the hacking claims. He is hosting at a very cheap host called MyHostCamp which is renowned for technical problems. All 72 clients of this host are down, not just Lieberman. It's being pointed out that Lieberman has at present no evidence whatsoever that his site has been hacked and is simply making allegations. --195.93.21.37 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a prominent post on Daily Kos saying that the site host is down, not that the site hosting was not paid for. The cheapskate angle is that he didn't pay for a decent web host. Having said that, another part of the post says that another Lieberman site on the same host is still up. I'm confused, but that may just be my poor grasp of the technicalities of web hosting. Henry^Flower 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, obviously you posted this as I was replying above! I don't know about the other Liberman site still being up but it did say that all 72 clients of the host are down. --195.93.21.37 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Kos doesn't sound like a reliable source. dposse 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that claims on the Daily Kos should put up on the page, I'm just pointing out that there are other explanations for Lieberman's site being down other than the hacking claims made by his campaign. The media are only echoing Liberman's claims. The general consensus appears to be that a combination of cheap hosting and exceeding the bandwith could easily be responsible and nobody will know for certain unless Lieberman allows an investigation. It is apparently easy enough to determine whether he has really been hacked (or if his host has, as would seemingly have to be the case). In the meantime, I'm only suggesting that while I think it's a good idea to mention it on Wikipedia, it should not as yet be stated as fact that Lieberman has been hacked until the truth has been established, simply stating that Lieberman's site is down and his campaign are claiming he's been hacked would be more appropriate. --195.93.21.37 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you'll be happy to know that Lieberman has demanded an investigation from the attorney general, the justice department, ect. [109] I agree that we should include this in wikipedia. However, the daily kos is too POV for wikipedia for any of its claims to be taken seriously. Your proposal is a good idea. dposse 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

State attorney general Richard Blumenthal has now announced that he will investigate the hacking as a violation of state and federal law. [110] Funnyfarmofdoom 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

I'd like to make a minor edit in the succession box. Right now, the link "Fred Thompson" leads to a disambiguation page. I'd like to change the link in the box to "Fred Dalton Thompson|Fred Thompson", who was the U.S. Senator who chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs before Lieberman. Similarly, under 2006 campaign-endorsements-people, "John Lewis" is a disambiguation link. It should be "John Lewis (politician)|John Lewis." However, it may not germane after all this primary election editing war silliness is over. Thanks, --Jim Campbell 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman might be offered Republican ticket

According to [over at the Nation], the Republicans are seriously considering offering Lieberman the Republican ticket in Connecticut should he lose today (as looks likely). Apparantly their candidate is a gambling addict who people already have had serious doubts over, and they could use this as an excuse to have him replaced by Lieberman. All speculation of course, but it does seem as though some senior Republicans are very keen on the idea. Is this worthy of mention? Obviously it shouldn't be implied that it is something that is very likely to happen, but it may be worth mentioning the fact that the Republicans are seriously considering offering Lieberman the chance to be their candidate if he loses today. --195.93.21.37 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman already has a plan in place if he loses the primary, and it isn't the Republicans. dposse 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, but obviously at this stage Lieberman's views on the idea of running as a Republican are unknown. I wasn't suggesting any implication should be made that Lieberman might like to run as a Republican rather than an independent if offered the chance, merely that the fact that the Republicans are seriously considering asking him to might be worthy of mention. --195.93.21.37 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don’t think that “some Connecticut Republicans” are “discussing the prospect” that Lieberman would run as a Republican is credible information that should be cited by an encyclopedia. Who are these Connecticut Republicans? If we’re talking about party bosses and elected officials, okay. But that article could just as easily be referring to a couple stock brokers sitting in a bar. I know the article mentions Jodi Rell, but cites her only as saying that Schlesinger might want to consider dropping out. The article does not state that Rell offered Lieberman or anyone else as an alternative. I think the article could be cited to show DeLay and Coulter have supported Lieberman’s positions. I also think the Lieberman-as-Republican is a story that editors might want to follow to see if more develops. As it stands, however, I don’t think the rumor that Lieberman is being considered by Republicans should be included in an encyclopedia article based solely on very vague statements from a political blog.

Now can someone fix the Fred Thompson link?

--Jim Campbell 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's stockbrokers in a bar, I would assume it's talking about party officials although I agree it dosen't actually say who. I agree editors like the story probably because the suggestion that Lieberman might turncoat and join the GOP might seem like an attention grabber and possibly plausible because of the perception of him as a DINO. I'm not sure as to whether the stuff about Coulter and DeLay supporting Liberman is that noteworthy, it's interesting I suppose but I would'nt be entirely sure that Lieberman welcomes Coulter's support. --195.93.21.37 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing the amount of speculation on this page, I can only thank the wise admin who didn't lift the page protection during the election. Perhaps some of the conversation could find its way to an internet chat forum instead of an encyclopedia? Sandy 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman concedes the primary

AP News Alert: [111]. --MZMcBride 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect

{{editprotected}} How do we get this to be unprotected?? This is ridiculous--the biggest story in Lieberman's career just happened and we can't write about it. --Smedley Hirkum 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing that this might happen, I've been trying for the past several days to get protection demoted to semi-protection. No luck yet. The page is already listed on WP:RFPP --MZMcBride 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I will be happy to change things, but I don't wanna mess with this (hot topic). Plus, we should wait until he ACTUALLY files, as he may still get talked out of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Party status should change

When this page is unprotected, Lieberman's party status should be changed from Democratic Party (US) to Independent (politician). He has stated his intention to run against the Democratic candidate. Thesmothete 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't he both? Independent means that he's not running for the Party in this years election, but that doesn't mean that he isn't still a democrat. Why should it be only Independent when he's only being a Independent for this one election? dposse 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, by way of example, what if he was "for this one election" running as a Republican? Would we still call him a Democrat? We might say that he was a Democrat, but not that he is one. The template uses both, and I think that makes sense. But he should not be listed unqualfiadly as a Democrat in any general sense, such as had been the case in the opening sentence. Thesmothete 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then not only would he be going against his political beliefs by running as a republican, he would destroy any chance of winning by alienating himself from a completely blue state. It should be listed as both because he is still a democrat, but he's running in this election as a Independent. dposse 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's missing the point. The point is that to be a Democratic politician, by definition you must support (or at least not oppose, certainly not run against) the Democratic nominee for the office. You can't run in and lose the Democratic primary and then merrily still be a Democratic candidate for office. Otherwise, why would the Democrats have a primary at all? Thesmothete 05:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article 8, section 1 of the Democratic party charter states that the Democratic Party is open to all who desire to support the party and who wish to be known as Democrats. If he decides to run as an Ind, Lieberman is showing he doesn't support the party.--riffic 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not until and unless the papers are filed. Expect every senior member of the party to sit on him --Gorgonzilla 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He had something like 48 percent of the vote. The petition should be ok. dposse 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Unprotected -- Samir धर्म 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. dposse 04:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman still is a Democrat

END OF DISCUSSION: On Meet the Press on Sunday, No. 12th, Lieberman stated that he wishes to be referred to as an "Independent Democrat" and that he informed the clerk of Congress that he wished to be labeled as such. (japhy1979)

I think it's inappropriate to refer to Sen Lieberman as an independent because he will be a member of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate until January, whether he wins or loses. --204.108.237.194 22:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He's also a registered Democrat. User:Jules1236

This is a VERY IMPORTANT point to make. First, Senator Lieberman is still a registered Democrat and has said publically numerious times he is a lifelong democrat and will remain a democrat until the day he dies. His affiliation should be displayed as "independent democrat" wherever it comes up. Although he's running under the party Connecticut for Lieberman he NEVER declared a party change on his voter registration form. Furthermore, if he wins reelection he plans to continue to caucus with the Democrats. Finally, in the state of Connecticut there is an "Independent Party." If one refuses to acknowledge the Senator's allegiance to the Democratic Party he must consider Senator Lieberman an "unaffiliated" candidate.

Right; the Senate's official website still lists him as a Democrat, as it probably will until January (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Lieberman) Rowsdower45 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman is a Democrat, and he has never been a member of the CTfL. There is really nothing extraordinary (in the US, at least) about running for another party than the one the candidate in question are registered with. The section on the 06 election is technically accurate, and the information in the lead should be harmonised with it. I will make the necessary changes. --Thorsen 05:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this, he'll remain a democrat even after January: [112] Case closed? 66.194.253.20

ok, Sen. Lieberman ran as a member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party after he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. Since he voted in the Primary (For Himself), he had to register as a DEMOCRAT. When he lost the primary, he was STILL REGISTERED AS A DEMOCRAT! He just ran as a member of the CFL. When the senate convenes in January, he will still be a Democrat because he is registered as a democrat. In fact, if he wasn't a democrat, than he wouldn't keep his leadership position in the senate and couldn't vote for leadership in the senate (Majority leader,ETC.) Therefore Lieberman is STILL A DEMOCRAT. he was just running as an independent...he didn't switch parties.--User:soldierboy753 01:22, 11 November 2006

I think it's quite obvious that Joe Gun is still a democrat, for all of the reasons stated above. Is anybody still arguing that he should be listed as an independent? If not, I recommend that Wikipedia declare this particular issue resolved.

There will be a question mark through the opening of the new Senate, and even after that. "D" in the infobox? Seems ok. But prominent mention in the lead of his role in 2006, for at least some time. I would drop the CFL (mindless detail) but retain that he lost the primary and ran against the democratic nominee (I don't recall his name) as a 3rd party candidate.

Look, there will be anxiousness about Lieberman for quite some time. He helped defeat one (or perhaps two) democratic challengers for the house. He set a precedent that sitting senators need not obey primary results. Every time the Bloomberg/new third party rumors float, Lieberman will be one of the first few names that jumps to mind.

Infoboxes may be resolved, but not Lieberman per se. Jd2718 13:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: statements by Lieberman himself are important, but when he speaks about himself, he indicates how he wants to be seen, which is not enough. Jd2718 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The matter of Lieberman's party affiliation is also relevant to the article on the Senate, specifically the tally box under future composition. Recently, different editors have been going back on forth [113] [114] as to whether the future composition is 49 Dems, 49 Republicans, and 2 independents, or 50 Dems, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent (Lieberman being the difference between the two tallies). - Walkiped 06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sen. Lieberman has said that he has not ruled out the option of becoming a Republican.

‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Avt tor 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that came from this article in the New York Times. The quote is:

. . . a senator without a political party.  Mr. Lieberman, a longtime Democrat of Connecticut who was re-elected as an independent and calls himself an “Independent Democrat,” has not ruled out becoming a Republican.

Hope that helps! --Tim4christ17 ^talk 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed his party affiliation to "Democrat." I agree with soldierboy753. I think this issue should be firmly settled. This has been changed way too many times, and the dispute is more political than it is factual. The facts are that Lieberman is a registered Democrat, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, and a member of the Democratic leadership as a Democratic committee chairman.

The fact that Lieberman has not "ruled out" becoming a member of the Republican Party shouldn't change the fact that he is currently a member of the Democratic Party.

User:Jules1236

Being an "Independent Democrat" reflects more accurately on Lieberman, as he has on numerous occasions crossed party lines on major issues, and has a very centrist viewpoint in the political arena. Ironically Lieberman has been receiving most of his support from Connecticut's Republicans and a large share of unaffiliated voters, while he has lost support among the state's Democrats. Regardless, Lieberman along with Senator Jeffords from Vermont will be considered "swing votes" in the up-coming 110th Congress.

User:wxstorm

Religious Identity

I changed two fairly glaring issues in the opening paragraph relating to Lieberman's religious identity. First, I changed the opening sentence from "Joseph Lieberman is a Jewish American politician..." to "Joseph Lieberman is an American politician." This prominent religious reference isn't found in any other senators article.

Also, I got rid of the ridiculous reference to him as a "leading anti-Palestinian legislator" also in the opening paragraph. Again, this isn't seen in any other pro-Israel senator's article, and I think this was religously motivated.

The article mentions both his religion and support of Israel, as it should, but none of this belongs in the opening paragraph.

User: Jules1236

Jewish Person or Jew?

Is there some reason why my change of "Jewish person" to "Jew" was reverted? My usage was correct. JFK is not referred to as a "Roman Catholic person", he is referred to as a "Roman Catholic" An example of the proper use of "Jew" and "Jewish" can be found in Judah P. Benjamin as follows:

He was the second Jew (after David Levy Yulee of Florida) to serve as a U.S. Senator and the first in the cabinet of a North American government, and had the opportunity to be the first Jewish nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, though he declined the position.

From Etymology of the word Jew:

However, when used as a noun, "Jew" is preferred, as other circumlocutions (e.g. "Jewish person") give the impression that the term "Jew" is offensive in all contexts.

Other senators are not singled out for their religion. "Jewish" is part of his biography. It's inappropriate to single out this religion for special mention in the intro paragraph, as this is not done for others. Avt tor 23:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet Vacation?

It's okay to mention this in the environmental section, but they way it is written clearly shows an anti-Lieberman bias. Plus, the ontheissues link say nothing about a vacation. If you do have real evidence present it in your link, if not, erase that sentence about the sweet vacation the lobbyists gave him.

Bush's Favorite?

Who put that "Bush's Favorite Democrat" thing? I couldn't remove it and there is no evidence that he's Bush's favorite Democrat, now is that an appropriate category to have on here!

Reliable sources

Checks needed on the following for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP (which demands only the highest quality sources in biographies of living persons).

• http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/iwill.html
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://pac.nisgroup.com/learn/media/violent-video-game-legislation/
• http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=6086997 replaced (see below) Sandy 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/15/naral-ct-head-backs-ned-lamont/
• http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/post_14.html

There may be others; these are only the ones I saw on a quick glance. Are the edus self-published? If so, they must be deleted per WP:BLP. Blogs are not reliable sources. I wasn't sure on some of the others. Sandy 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gamespot website is owned by the tech news media company, CNET and is a well-known source for video game-related articles but it is debatable for an American politican biography. It could have a better source. That story could have be easily replaced with the Reuters article that was being cited by Gamespot, however I can't find it. I'm assuming Reuters gets rid of their old syndicated articles. --4.253.35.149 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. I will replace the Gamespot link with Reuters/Forbes. --4.253.35.149 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hotline is run by National Journal. It was a direct quote from Schumer. I dont think there's a reliability issue here

"Website Hacked" Claims

I added a section about this, with all the info I have. If anyone has anything to add, please do. And please discuss drastic edits here before going ahead and deleting a whole paragraph or two.--Zaorish 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Zaorish, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP; any poorly-sourced criticism on BLPs is deleted from article *and* talk pages. Sandy 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I was not aware of that policy. Thanks for showing it to me.

If WP:BLP demands a source for any news at all, then I can go and put back the same information with pointers to the news articles I got it from. I don't have time now, but I'll do it later.

-->I don't understand what you mean by "criticism", I was only reporting the *claims* of two sides of a story now under investigation. Could you please explain? And, if you consider what I wrote "criticism", then there is boatloads of that stuff in the talk archives here. Why is it not deleted?

--Zaorish 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Zaorish, I can't keep up with all of it: I can only keep up with what I see. Statements added to BLPs should be well referenced. There are plenty of places where you can source those comments: just do it. Sandy 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I clicked here to see the NPOV rational but there's none here! Why is that tag still on the page? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.249.168 (talk • contribs)

Check the archives. Smedley Hirkum 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements

The endorsements section is now irrelevant since Joe lost the primary. I added a little note above the endorsements stating they were inaccurate since so many people who endorsed Joe in the primary have endorsed Ned in the general. Can we delete this and instead link to the Connecticut Senate race page?? --Smedley Hirkum 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support moving it somewhere; not needed here. Sandy 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Sure, he lost the primary, but he's still running. The endorsments are still accurate. dposse 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The endorsements aren't even accurate in the first place. Lieberman got the support of all of Connecticut's state legislators? That can't be true. And the cited source doesn't work. --Smedley Hirkum 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree: I'd like to see them on the election page, rather than his personal page, to help keep the more static info here, and the dynamic info there. It's too hard to keep up with things in so many places. Sandy 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Smedley, let's get a drive for consensus, which we had before the LionO Stephenzhu revert war. All of this election stuff needs to go to the election article. Much of it is poorly sourced and poorly written, yet repeated in the election article, creating double work: we need to get it to one place so it can be cleaned up. Sandy 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose we delete our endorsements page (because it's inaccurate) and shorten the election section considerably, linking to the Senate Race article instead.

--Smedley Hirkum 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said on the archived talk versions, I don't care where it ends up, just that we get all in one place. Right now, the series of articles are a mess, with repeated info, unreferenced info, limited adherence to BLP, need for copy editing. I support any move that gets the election stuff consolidated, for clarity and easy of editing. I keep deleting the same blogs from 3 articles ! Sandy 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose pretty drastic changes, cutting the election portion of the article by, say 60-75%. Should we vote on this or something? --Smedley Hirkum 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of drastic change. The editing chore if we don't consolidate is ridiculous. There is an article for the election, all of the election material should be there. This is one small part of Joe Lieberman's entry, and right now, all of the articles are sloppy. I don't know who will help build consensus. Let's give it some time and see if anyone disagrees? Sandy 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we keep this infomation as it was accurate during the primary? Also, Let's try to find infomation on who is supporting him for the November election before we delete everything. Working togther now will solve problems later. dposse 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read above: I didn't mean we should delete anything, just get all the election info to one place. I wouldn't have a problem with keeping a list of those who endorsed Lieberman in the primary here (since that info isn't needed in the general election article), but think it would be better (now) converted to a simple, prose paragraph. These articles look awful. Sandy 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's do that with the CT senate race page, not this one. I say we delete this list. --Smedley Hirkum 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of drastically cutting down the "Democratic primary" section of the article. --MZMcBride 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the endorsements should have ever been listed so completely on Lieberman's bio. That's something more appropriate for a campaign web site than an encyclopedia article. I can't think of any other bio on wikipedia that lists all the endorsements a person received in a single election, even if that election was a current one. Furthermore, leaving the endorsements on the page could mislead readers since many of those who endorsed Lieberman in the primary have announced they will support Lamont, the Democratic nominee, in the general election. Are the endorsements being moved or deleted?Jim Campbell 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% Jim. I wanted the endorsements gone from the beginning. I say we delete the endorsements and refer people to the CT Sen race article. --Smedley Hirkum 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, based on the consensus here, I've deleted the "endorsements" section. The endorsements were already listed on the page for the election, so I didn't need to add them there. If any editors have a problem with the removal of the endorsements, let them revert now or forever hold their piece.

I have a procedural question. If a consensus has been reached and acted upon, how long does the talk page have to reflect that? Specifically, how long do we wait until deleting this thread from the talk page? --Jim Campbell 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't delete threads from talk pages: we periodically archive talk pages, when discussions are closed. What's the hurry? Sandy 20:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NO hurry, just wondering when that gets done. --Jim Campbell 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Party status should change

moved from: [115] dposse 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When this page is unprotected, Lieberman's party status should be changed from Democratic Party (US) to Independent (politician). He has stated his intention to run against the Democratic candidate. Thesmothete 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't he both? Independent means that he's not running for the Party in this years election, but that doesn't mean that he isn't still a democrat. Why should it be only Independent when he's only being a Independent for this one election? dposse 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, by way of example, what if he was "for this one election" running as a Republican? Would we still call him a Democrat? We might say that he was a Democrat, but not that he is one. The template uses both, and I think that makes sense. But he should not be listed unqualfiadly as a Democrat in any general sense, such as had been the case in the opening sentence. Thesmothete 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then not only would he be going against his political beliefs by running as a republican, he would destroy any chance of winning by alienating himself from a completely blue state. It should be listed as both because he is still a democrat, but he's running in this election as a Independent. dposse 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's missing the point. The point is that to be a Democratic politician, by definition you must support (or at least not oppose, certainly not run against) the Democratic nominee for the office. You can't run in and lose the Democratic primary and then merrily still be a Democratic candidate for office. Otherwise, why would the Democrats have a primary at all? Thesmothete 05:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article 8, section 1 of the Democratic party charter states that the Democratic Party is open to all who desire to support the party and who wish to be known as Democrats. If he decides to run as an Ind, Lieberman is showing he doesn't support the party.--riffic 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not until and unless the papers are filed. Expect every senior member of the party to sit on him --Gorgonzilla 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He had something like 48 percent of the vote. The petition should be ok. dposse 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman is still a democrat. This article states infomation about his past, when he was a democrat. His political views are democratic on the Political spectrum. He is just running as an Independent as a title so he can keep his job. It should be listed as both because not only is he still a democratic, this article states factual content about his past where he was a democrat. I added a reference to the "political party" Independent thing so than it shows that he is running as a Independent in this one election. dposse 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All the same, Lieberman may have had a fighting chance if he had the "balls" to appear on the Colbert Report for his interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagreen20614 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your talk page entries by putting 4 tildes ~~~~ after your entry. Sandy 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lieberman's concession speech last night and his appearance on CNN's American Morning today represent a de facto resignation from the Democratic Party. As such, his party status should change to solely "independent," even after he drops out of the Senate race. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, he has not made any indication that he's withdrawing from this Senate race, although I suppose it's a possibility in the future.

Secondly, he did not resign from the Democratic Party.

He has already stated-repeatedly-that if he is re-elected he will caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate.

Simply because he was defeated in this primary, and is not going to be the Democratic nominee in this election, does not mean that he has renounced his ties to the Democratic Party.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole conversation is very confusing: for Wikipedia, his party status changes only when a *very* (WP:BLP) reliable source says it changed. Any other change here is original research. Sandy 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the not-out-of-date source that says he is a Democrat? The default should be that a candidate has NO party affiliation (D) (R) (G) (S) or (I) until it has been established what that candidate's party affiliation is. There is a Democrat running for Senate. It is true, and there are many sources, that he WAS a Democrat. But where is the reliable source that says that he IS? All we know is that he is on the ballot as an independent candidate -- that's been widely reported. Can anyone find a Democratic Party website updated since the election that says he is, currently, a Democrat? Thesmothete 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misuderstanding the issue here.

No one is asserting that Joe Lieberman is the Democratic nominee for this seat-nor asserting that Ned Lamont is not the official Democratic nominee-or that he is not running as an independent candidate, .

Those are indisputable, established facts.

However, the contention that he is no longer a registered Democrat, or that he has abjured any affiliation with the Democratic Party is not a fact.

In fact, there is no tangible evidence supporting this claim.

Perhaps he will leave the Democratic Party in the future, but that is merely speculation and conjecture at this point in time, not factual evidence.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But see riffic's comment, above. Is there no other act, short of their own explicit renunciation, that could make someone not a Democrat? According to the Democrat's own platform, the criterion is support for the Party. He's opposing the Party's nominee; how else would you "not support" the party? It does appear that Lieberman is registered in Connecticut as a Democrat, but is that conclusive evidence of "Democrat"ness? What if he voted for Frist for Majority leader? Still a Democrat then? Perhaps the undisputed facts are that 1) he CLAIMS to be a Democrat, 2) he is REGISTERED as a Democrat, and 3) he filed to run AGAINST the official Democratic Party nominee as an Independent (another form of party registration, I might add...).Thesmothete 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with CT's election laws, so I don't know if placing your name on the ballot as an independent candidate nullifies your enrollment in another political party.

What I do know is that Joe Lieberman has never expressed any desire to leave the Democratic Party, and has reiterated his intention to caucus with the Democrats, should he win re-election as an independent candidate.

The Democratic Party platform in this respect is of dubious value.

There are many Democratic candidates who have broken with the Democratic Party platform, and even voted against Democratic presidential nominees, and yet still remained members of the Democratic Party, even members of the Democratic caucus within Congress.

Gene Taylor voted for each one of the articles of impeachment brought against former President Clinton, and yet he remains a member of the House Democratic minority in good standing.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thesmothete, your argument is original research. He's the Democratic senator from CT, and he's a Democrat on Wiki until a reliable source says otherwise. Sandy 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. It's incontravertible he is not running as part of the Democratic Party, but rather a party he just created called "Connecticut for Lieberman". You don't get to lose a Democratic primary and still run as part of the Democratic party. Isn't the petition for signatures to start a political party "Conneticuts for Lieberman" good enough for WP:BLP? "Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state's office Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman." - AP. He is not running as part of the Democratic party but as of a third-party called "Connecticut for Lieberman. Are you saying he's still a Democrat now but he's not running as a Democratic candidate, because I will agree with that. --kizzle 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Democratic senator" means he's a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, which as far as I know is still true, and it would be huge news if it changed (e.g. Jeffords quit the Republican caucus, and every now and then a Congressmember gets booted out of their caucus, usually the result of a scandal). It doesn't just mean he's registered as a Dem on the CT voter rolls. But if he's reelected as an independent, I think JL will probably still try to stay in the Dem caucus, and IMO he'd be permitted to stay. So, I'd describe him as a Democratic senator running for reelection on an independent ticket after losing his party's primary. Phr (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He is not running as a member of the Democratic Party, and no one here is asserting otherwise.

That does not negate the fact that he's still a registered Democrat-to the best of my knowledge-or that he intends to caucus with the Democratic Party if he is re-elected on a third party line this November.

As mentioned above, he is also still a member of that caucus for the time being.

That hasn't changed.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Democrat" is not well-defined. There are, apparently at least three ways a person could be a Democrat. 1) registered to vote in the Democratic primary of their state of residence, 2) a participant in the Democratic Caucus of the body in which they hold office, and 3) The possessor of or opponent of, the Democratic Party endorsement for office. Usually, all are the same. Here they are not. Therefore it is inappropriate to use the word "Democrat" to describe Lieberman when he is the opponent of the Democrat. I don't think it constitutes original research to ask where we would find the originial source for who is and isn't an unqualified (meaning no asterisk) Democrat. Another way to put it is that his status as a Democrat is disputed. That disputation a verifiable fact. I'll provide citations if needed, but I feel it should be obvious. Thesmothete 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1. This wikipedia article states infomation about his past. In his past, he has always been a democrat.

2. Last night, he stated that he is going to be a "Independent Democrat". I'm trying to find a video of that, but have had no luck of that so far.

3. His political beliefs are still that of a Democrat. His followers are all democrats.

4. He is becoming an "Independent Democrat" in a final attempt to save a job that he has held for years.

5. I put a citation in the infobox to a MSNBC article where it states that he is running as a Independent Democrat for this election. It says NOTHING about the future.

I don't know why this isn't good enough for you. It's logical, isn't it?dposse 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You left out the part where he explicitly filed under the political party called "Connecticuts for Lieberman". This party is a distinct entity from the "Democratic Party". He can call it whatever he wants, and we can attribute that he has said he is running as an "Independent Democrat", but his actual party affiliation for the purposes of the November election is of the newly formed "Connecticuts for Lieberman," a separate and distinct entity from the "Democratic Party." This point is indisputable. --kizzle 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we just have to be precise about what we're expressing. I'm fine with calling him a Democratic Senator as long as he's a member of the Dem senate caucus. He's certainly not a "Democratic candidate" for the 2006 election (that's what the primary decided) but he's accurately a Democratic senator running as a petitioning candidate. I think dposse's point #1 above is accurate; point #2 is accurate but irrelevant to an objective description (it just states JL's opinion; JL could similarly say he's the Queen of Sweden but that wouldn't make it true); point #3 is POV and not relevant; point #4 is meaningless since "Independent Democrat" doesn't mean anything; point #5 mentions an MSNBC article about "Independent Democrat" but I can't find those words in the article. Nonetheless, I'm satisfied with the current (revision 68732856) phrasing in the infobox, that states both "Democratic" and "Independent". Phr (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --kizzle 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement that the way it is now, stating him as "Democrat, Independent", is ok. ^_^ dposse 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole argument strikes me as tedious and off-topic.

He will be on an independent, third party line this general election.

He will not be a representing the Democratic Party ticket in the state of CT this November.

That does not mean, however, that he is no longer a Democrat.

It seems pretty simple to me.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm ok with the infobox since it expresses "independent" and "democrat" separately (the two terms apply in different ways, as we've discussed). I don't like the intro section's description "Shortly afterward, he announced he would run in the 2006 November election as an independent Democrat on the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' ticket.", which cites an MSNBC article that actually says "Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent." The MSNBC article does not use the phrase "independent Democrat" and we should not use that neologism. Even if we do find a cite for that phrase somewhere, it should be attributed to its source, rather than simply cited as a neutral fact. CT election law forbids 3rd party candidates from using terms like "democrat" in their party names for a reason, and so any use of "independent Democrat" should be considered POV. Phr (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to get a video his speech last night. It states it there. Or i suppose we could try to find a news story that says that, or just reword the paragraph. (i vote for rewording) dposse 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus on how Lieberman's party should be listed on the infobox, we should probably leave it as is. However, unless “Independent Democrat” is the name of a party, the intro section should continue to read that he is running as an independent. The article itself will clarify Lieberman’s position that, if he wins as an independent candidate, he’ll caucus with the Democrats.

-Jim Campbell 02:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, regardless of what Lieberman says himself, the party he has registered under is called "Connecticuts for Lieberman". If he says he's running for the Queen of England, we don't put "Queen of England" party under party affiliation. There is no "Independent Democratic" party, so the infobox I think should stay the same. Democratic, Independent (Connecticuts for Lieberman). Democratic because he's a Democratic senator until elections. Independent because of the ticket and party formed by petition after that. --kizzle 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats if relected is partly up to the Dem caucus and not entirely up to Lieberman. He's said he'll vote with the Dems on procedural issues, which is the current situation with Jeffords and Sanders (neither of whom are in the Dem caucus but they haven't asked to join it). I don't think JL is likely to get expelled from the caucus involuntarily, but it's not impossible (I remember there was some agitation to get Zell Miller kicked out for supporting the Republicans so often, though I don't know how serious it got). Caucuses hold private meetings to discuss political strategy, and so they might well boot a member who they think is leaking info to the other side. I think Jim Traficant was kicked out of the Dem caucus after his criminal conviction but I'm not certain of this (he was eventually kicked out of the House altogether). I wonder what other examples exist. Btw, I did modify the intro to say JL is running as an independent instead of "independent Democrat". I haven't checked whether anyone changed it since then.Phr (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the emerging consensus that the infobox should say "Democrat, Independent". I think the only thing I would oppose is that the infobox or any other reference to Joe Lieberman *unqualifiedly* call him a Democrat. So for example, I would oppose a statement that he is "a Democratic US Sentor from Connecticut" because that's disputed. However, I would support calling him "a US Senator from Connecticut who <either or both> caucuses with the Senate Democrats/won his seat with the Democratic nomination". I don't think anyone has disagreed with this, either. I'm glad we seem to be making progress. Thesmothete 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He isn't both democratic and independent. He's Democratic now, but if he wins next term he will be an Independent under the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Can't we explain that?

I don't think it's seriously disputed that JL is (as of today) a Democratic senator from Connecticut. He's still in the Senate, he's still from Connecticut, he still is in the Senate Democratic Caucus and serves on various Senate committees as a Democrat, he's still a registered Democratic voter, etc. That may all change (especially the committee assignments) if he's elected as an independent (I don't know whether "reelected" is the right word for that situation) in November, but we're talking about today. There's some pressure from Lamont supporters for the Dem leadership to strip JL's committee assignments immediately if JL doesn't drop his independent run, but I don't know if the leadership is taking such suggestions seriously. As of right now I'd say JL is clearly still a Dem Senator in any reasonable "official" sense, just like Zell Miller was officially a Dem Senator all the way to the end (even though Miller endorsed Bush in 2004 and was the keynote speaker for the 2004 GOP convention and an awful lot of other Dems wanted to rip his lungs out). One can of course hold the opinion that JL is not a "real" Democrat in terms of philosophy or whatever, or speculate that he might get booted from the caucus sometime in the future, but those are different issues. I think if someone well-informed describes JL as a non-Democrat, they're speaking philosophically rather than literally. He stops definitely being a Democratic Senator only if either 1) he himself announces it, 2) the party leadership announces he's been booted; 3) he leaves the Senate. There's only a real dispute if he says one thing and the party leadership says another, and that hasn't happened (at least yet).

How a Senator got elected isn't terribly conclusive about what party that senator is a member of at any moment. Jeffords was elected as a Republican but he quit the party and is independent now--describing him as a Republican senator today is just plain incorrect. Ben Nighthorse Campbell similarly switched parties right in the middle of his term, so he was a Dem senator one day and a Republican senator the next. JL can in principle get elected as an independent and continue to serve in the Senate as a Democrat, and it's pretty clear that he hopes (realistically or otherwise) to do exactly that.Phr (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman (as of today) is still a democratic senator in Washington D.C. Just because Ned Lamont defeated him in the primary does not mean Lieberman is no longer a senator. You'll have to wait for the actual election for that. -Trega123 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So are we drawing a distinction between him being a "Democratic Senator" and a "Democratic Candidate"? Thesmothete 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we are drawing a distinction between being a "Democratic Senator" and being a "Democratic Candidate." I also believe that that is an appropriate and factual distinction to draw. I agree with Phr that the fact that Lieberman is a Democrat is not being "seriously disputed." If he wins the election, I think he would still be considered a Democrat if he caucused with the Democrats and was registered in Connecticut as a Democrat. However, that is both debatable and an issue for another time. As the situation stands, I would say Lieberman is a Democratic Senator and an Independent/ Lieberman-for-Connecticut candidate for the Senate. --Jim Campbell 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a fair distinction since he is a registered democrat, but has a received the nomination of a party other than the democrats and was not granted the democratic nomination (to cover for some politicans who may get nominated for multiple parties). FleetAdmiralJ 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me as long as Lieberman is listed as a Democrat on the U.S. Senate web page, he should still be a considered a Democrat. Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican, is listed there as I-VT, but Lieberman is still D-CT. Talmage 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents, as long as he is a registered Democrat, than his party affiliation should be labeled Democrat. In New York Politics, the Democrat candidate usually gets endorsed by the Liberal Party, and accepts that endorsement. Does that mean Hillary Clinton is a member of the Liberal Party? Of course not. Lieberman is a Democrat running as an independant --67.105.241.226 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what i was saying! Talk about going full circle... dposse 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with 67.105.241.226. We shouldn't go by his voter registration alone. If, for example, in the unlikely event that the Dem senate leadership decides to throw Lieberman out of the caucus or if he quits it, then we shouldn't refer to him as a Democrat any longer, at least in contexts referring to his role as a Senator. This is true even if he keeps his Democratic voter registration (though of course we could note that in the article text). It's possible that Jeffords is still a registered Republican voter in Vermont but I don't think anyone cares very much. For purposes of "Senator Jeffords" he became "I-VT" the day he quit the Republican caucus. But as Talmage says, Lieberman is still a D as of today. Phr (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What your party affiliation is and who you caucus with are seperate issues. You can be an Independent and causus with a party (see Jeffords). You can be a member of one party and caucus with the other (I believe Zel Miller did this). I haven't found anything yet about whether Jeffords is still a registered republican, but I'm pretty sure he's not because he's officiall an Independent in the senate, and if my hunch is correct, voter registration is the determining factor. Unfortunately I can't find a source that says one way or the other. However, it clearly isn't the party you are elected as, because politicans can change their affiliation mid-term. FleetAdmiralJ 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More on Lieberman mediation

Can I close Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman? There doesn't seem to have been any further discussion, and the revert wars appear to have ended. Fishhead64 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Stephenzhu and User:LionO haven't posted here again since you responded to the mediation. I suggest you might leave an inquiry on their talk pages. Sandy 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They might have gotten temporarily sick of the subject after the primary ended. I wouldn't be surprised to see them here again as the general election campaign intensifies (assuming JL stays in). Phr (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they both disappeared several days before the primary, when they realized there were some rules they would have to follow. Things like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP Sandy 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WaPo endorses indy bid

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901632.html

Someone might add that. I'm tired ;-) Phr (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard time displaying on larger resolutions

On larger resolutions (1600x1200), this page has a few large gaps, the largest one at the top of the page. -Trega123 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"800×600 was the standard resolution until around 2000. Since then, 1024×768 has been the standard resolution. Many web sites and multimedia products are designed for this resolution." [116] dposse 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove current event marker

Should we still have the current event marker at the top? Other Senators up for re-election don't have them. See Lincoln Chafee and George Allen. Thesmothete 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the removal of the "current event" marker. Although the election is ongoing, I don't believe that "information may change rapidly as the event progresses," as the marker indicates. I think that was an appropriate header as we headed into the Senate primary. For now, the facts and events have been decided. Lamont won the primary. Lieberman is running as a third-party candidate. We might have a few polls to post, but other than that, no big news until November.

If we get another agreeing opinion or two without a descent, I'll pull the marker. If someone disagrees, tell us so and tell us why so we can hash it out. Thanks.

--Jim Campbell 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that we keep it. Lieberman's situation is pretty much unique- he lost to the primary, and in the next couple weeks this race will really shape up. Since his name is still in the news, I say we keep it. --Smedley Hirkum 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in the next couple of weeks the race will shape up. The unfolding of the 2006 campaign, however, refers to the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006, which already has a current event tag. Although it seemed to be briefly, this article is not about the 2006 election. It is a biographical encyclopedia article about Joe Lieberman’s life. Only major events in that life are worthy of inclusion. His loss in the 2006 primary was a major event and should therefore be included, as should some details about that loss. However, this article is not a proper place to detail the day-to-day, blow-by-blow unfolding of the general election. Those events should, as I said, go on the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 page.

As far as significant events go, the next major event in Lieberman’s life will likely not come until November. Therefore, I’ll reiterate that I believe that the current events tag should be removed. The article should detail the *major* events of the 2006 primary and general election. This article should reference the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 page, where a more detailed (and volatile) account of the 2006 election will be available. --Jim Campbell 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Sandy 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Campaign timeline

Why isn't that info also moved to the election article ? Sandy 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Smedley Hirkum 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zogby poll

This is pretty interesting: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155

Phr (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add anything about Rove

calling Lieberman on primary day, here's a reliable source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-08-10T164937Z_01_N10461049_RTRUKOC_0_US-REPUBLICANS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

--Smedley Hirkum 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's notable because?

It's notable because on primary day, the campaign accused Lamont supporters of '"Rovian tactics", and Karl Rove has said "[Lieberman is] a personal friend, and I called him Tuesday afternoon -- 5:00, thereabouts -- and wished him well on his election that night, it was a personal call."[117] --The lorax 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so he's friends with Rove. I don't see what the big deal is. Had Lieberman suddenly won the primary and someone suspected "Rovian" foul-play, I could understand the need to think about including it. Otherwise, where's the beef? Dubc0724 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I advocate this kind of random slander, but "Rovian tactics" is usually meant to mean legitimate abuse of the US media rather than actually cheating. While Lieberman is far from the only person whose campaign was founded on FUD and lies, his campaign has been, well, founded on FUD and lies. Associating with Rove is not a great way to distance onesself from this. Chris Cunningham 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It shows a relationship with Republicans and also the "partisanship" that he denounces so much. --Smedley Hirkum 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How does associating with someone of an opposing party-and a starkly different political philosophy-demonstrate "partisanship" on his part?

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl Rove is one of the most partisan figures in modern history. Now that Joe's using republican talking points wiht Lamont, this friendship doesn't show bipartisanship, it shows Republican partisanship. Smedley Hirkum 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that Lieberman is on such good terms with Rove. I wouldn't overplay it though - they are said to be friends, nobody claims Rove is advising him. Rove coming out and saying he's a good friend and he'll help him any way he can is probably a deliberate ploy by Rove to help draw Republican voters in Connecticut over to Lieberman - it's hard to imagine Rove would say stuff like that publically without thinking of the consequences. But there is no evidence that Rove is actually advising him. 195.93.21.37 05:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid much?

Ruthfulbarbarity 13:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Who, me or 'Smedley'? 195.93.21.37 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the way it's all turned out. Any time there's a 3rd party candidate and things get nasty, count me in. This 2 party crap is why we're in the mess we're in. Dubc0724 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

With the RNC refusing to endorse the Republican candidate in CT, I think a 3-party race is probably not accurate, seeing as Lieberman is running as the de facto Republican. --kizzle 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some users are verging on both bias and using this page to discuss the subject of the article, rather than the article itself. As I understand the rules of Wikipedia, both are inappropriate.

I think a phone call from Karl Rove on election night and Lieberman comparing Lamont supporters to Rove are more appropriate for the article Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006, which is the article about this election. As I see it, the Rove phone call is a significant event in the context of the 2006 election, but not a significant event in the context of Joe Lieberman’s life. That’s my opinion on this matter.Jim Campbell 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think the separation between Lieberman and the election is really worth making during the run-up. This article will doubtless generate more traffic because of the runup. It probably isn't worth expending a lot of energy enforcing what is still essentially an artificial separation during such a high-energy period; once the current argument settles down consensus can be reached on what is and is not pertinent to this article. Chris Cunningham 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Feuds

I added {{fact}} tags to this sub-heading. It assumes a lot, but there are no references for it. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire "Feuds" section should be removed. I regularly watch the show, and there doesn't seem to a feud between Stephen Colbert and Lieberman. Also, a Google search revealed nothing substantial. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's rubbish, I've removed it. Chris Cunningham 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Waterbury is evil" quote

Does this quote really belong on Lieberman's page, it's a comment made by a Lamont aide and isn't about Lieberman, so does it really belong here? Surely it would be make more sense to have that quote on Lamont's page? Regardless, if it is included, it seems slightly misleading the way it's presented here. It's claimed here that the aide said 'Waterbury is evil'. In fact, if you look at the source article, he says something like 'Waterbury is where the slime and the evil meet". He claims he was talking about two specific political figures in Waterbury whom he names (one being the 'slime', the other the 'evil') and he denies he was talking about the town or it's people in general. Nobody seems to be actually accusing him of saying the place or the people there are evil (although he has been asked to apologise), but that's the impression you'd get from reading this Wiki page. If it's to stay, surely it should be re-worded to feature his actual quote ("Waterbury is the where the slime and the evil meet" is rather different to "Waterbury is evil") and at least give his own explanation of what he was talking about. 195.93.21.37 04:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't directly relate to Joe Lieberman, and the election run and Lamont have their own articles, so it doesn't belong here. Again, nothing to do with whether it's accurate or biased, it's simply irrelevant. Chris Cunningham 07:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the Lieberman article. It did get some wide press coverage, probably due to political operatives pushing the story. San Francisco Chronicle story. Phr (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back because it is obvious here in CT it was done in retaliation for the locals not supporting Lamont. hence it is very relevant to the November election.

That's nice. It's still irrelevant to Lieberman's campign. Get a blog or something. Chris Cunningham 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Waterbury quote after it was put back again. That somebody else's campaign aide said something about a town in Connecticut is not relevant to Joe Liberman's life and career or even his campaign. It belongs on Lamont's page and on the page covering the 2006 Senate race in Connecticut. If anyone still disagrees, can they please come on here and justify the quotes inclusion on this page before making any more changes? 195.93.21.37 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's being put back silently by the same anonymous contributor every time. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. When the article is eventually sprotected for abuse (like every other political article on wikipedia) this will stop. Chris Cunningham 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the official Wikipedia position that posters from Waterbury are evil?

Yes, please see Wikipedia:Waterbury is evil. --kizzle 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Header changes

I went through and changed the specific issue headers (e.g. "Social Security") to a different format in order to remove them from the table of contents box. I don't think it's necessary to have every single issue Lieberman has talked about directly linkable from the top of the page, and using {{TOCleft}} was condensing all of the "Early life" section in an awkward way. If this new format is really disdained, I won't be offended if it's reverted, but I do think the page looks better now. --MZMcBride 04:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

it's less semantically useful; the TOC thing is a technical limitation, and ideally articles should try to avoid compromising themselves for the sake of technical limitations. However, I don't think this article is in danger of being abandoned any time soon, and for the time being it makes the intro far less ugly. Chris Cunningham 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman was a harsh critic of rap music

Joe Lieberman is a respectively a critic of the music and entertainment industry. He teamed up with the conservatives Jack Thompson, Bill Bennett, Tiper Gore (the wife of former vice president Al Gore) and (former civil rights movement leader) C. Delores Tucker to create the warning labels that we see on our video games, rap music, rock music, and ratings on television. The reason for his defeat did come from a little of Hollywood. LILVOKA 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in the article. I dare say his desire to have thousands of Arabs blown up is slightly more controversial than a desire to stop ickle children listen to rude words on the radio. Chris Cunningham

How is defending Israel's right to exist-and to resist Muslim aggression-controversial in the United States Congress?

I could probably count the opponents of Israel, and the number of members who opposed the resolution expressing support for Israel's counter-offensive in Lebanon within that body, on one hand.

And the people Israel is attacking are not simply "Arabs,"-as you would disingenuously have us believe-but Arab-MUSLIM terrorists.

I haven't seen many IAF pilots strafing Maronite Christian or Armenian Catholic neighborhoods.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you say so but I think he was talking about Iraq, not Israel. I suspect there is more to Lieberman's defeat than just his pro-war attitude but clearly that is the main reason. However I don't think either his pro-censorship or pro-Israeli views have anything to do with it. 195.93.21.37 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, last I looked Lieberman wasn't in the United States Congress. Chris Cunningham 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel? I think he's talking about Iraq. --kizzle 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Someone added a section on Lieberman's alleged nicknames, but didn't provide references. Someone should take a look at it. The contributor was an anon IP address, so in my eyes the information is suspect. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, no links, no placement

Bush kiss section

The "Bush kiss" section seems to have been deleted without comment, or discussion. Should it be re-added? --MZMcBride 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I hate Lieberman and am glad he lost the primary. But I feel that the Kiss section belongs in the primary article and not his own personal article, unless it's a *brief* mention as to why he lost the primary (like <5 words). --kizzle 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad he lost his primary but I wouldn't say I hate the guy. Regardless I don't agree that the Kiss section should be removed. It was a controversial incident that occured long before his primary challenge and was widely remarked upon at the time. Sure it should be mentioned on the primary article as it could have played a part in his defeat but I think it's a controversial enough moment in his career to warrant a mention on his personal page also. Fair enough if others don't agree but I can't think of too many other things in Lieberman's career that got him more media attention and controversy. 195.93.21.37 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hate is a strong word...

Perhaps the bush-kiss incident should get its own wikipage. It is notable. Readers may want to know what it was all about and its significance. That way it doen't have to be too prominent on this particular page. Thesmothete 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The looping video seems a little excessive. I like the idea of a seperate article, the video would belong there more, I think. Jules1236

interesting The Hill piece

Bunch of stuff about senators agitating to strip JL's committee memberships if he gets reelected. Probably should go in the article. Re above about the Bush kiss: that should be mentioned in the article about the 2006 election, preferably with a photo. It was a very memorable image from the campaign. Phr (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081606/news1.html Phr (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman is NOT an Independent

I was about to post this and saw someone else already beat me to it, so I'll just provide a justification here:

Joe is not an 'Independent', Joe is the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman (CT4L) party. The Independent Party is a registered entity in Connecticut that has no association with Holy Joe. One can view their website here, where one can plainly see Joe is not mentioned anywhere. Instead, he belongs to the Connecticut for Lieberman party, which is clearly a distinct entity from the Independent party, thus he is not an "Independent". --kizzle 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Being an 'independent' means not being a member of one of the organized political parties. It generally doesn't mean that one is a member of the Independent Party (which is a silly idea, even if it does really exist). Calling Lieberman an "independent candidate" is perfectly appropriate. Calling him an "Independent candidate" would not be, I guess. john k 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And obviously there is no "Connecticut for Lieberman" party. That's just silliness. john k 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, there is a "Connecticut for Lieberman" party. (Source: [118]) --MZMcBride 03:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be technically, but it isn't a real party. john k 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why create confusion by saying "independent", and instead just say he's a candidate from the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party rather than using "independent" when it is so close to the "Independent Party"?--kizzle 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that's how he's referred to. While a note might be made that he isn't the big-I Independent candidate, it's perfectly appropriate to refer to him as a small-i independent candidate because it's an accurate description of the event. Chris Cunningham 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" is not a real political party. It is an on paper only political party which exists solely for the purposes of Lieberman's independent Senate bid. john k 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a real party insomuch that 25 notable CT people are listed as party founders. The party may be single issue and single candidate, but that doesn't make it any less of a political party in the eyes of the Conencticut Election Board. [119] --waffle iron ^talk 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"On paper" or not, it still is the political party he is running on, which is separate from the "Independent party". Referring to him still as an independent candidate will be confusing to readers. --kizzle 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Some observations/comments:

1: We (Wikipedia) aren't in a positition to determine what is and what is not a "real party".

2: Connecticut has a legal process for creating political parties, and Lieberman (along with his supporters) has chosen to avail himself of that process.

3: There exists in Connecticut a political party with "Independent" in their name. It is possible (but not highly likely) that calling Lieberman an "Independent" candidate could cause some confusion.

4: The language Connecticut appears to use to describe candidates not associated with a party is "unaffiliated". By law, no party can be registered with "unaffiliated" in their name.

At the moment, it appears that Lieberman is unaffiliated. A "Connecticut for Lieberman" party has been formed, but he has not yet been officially nominated by that party. - O^O

The existence of Connecticut for Lieberman is a technicality resulting from oddities of Connecticut election law. It is a "political party" under the terms of Connecticut election law, of course, but it is not a "political party" in the generally understood sense of the term. john k 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Political party" under the terms of Connecticut election law is sufficient for us to refer to him as part of the party, whether or not we all know it is a joke. I think O's reasoning above is perfectly sound. --kizzle 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have this backwards. Nobody is disputing that Lieberman is running as Connecticut for Lieberman. What is being argued is whether it is inappropriate to refer to him as an "independent" candidate given that there is a real Independent Party. I dare say that most of those self-described as "independent" in United States political discussion are not, in fact, affiliates of the Independent Party, so it is foolish to speculate that any confusion caused thereby is caused by those who use the word (with a small i) in its most common meaning. Chris Cunningham 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's proper to refer to him as an "independent Democrat." Yes, it's a new term that Senator Lieberman created, but it's the only one that fits. He no longer has the endorsement from the Democratic Party, but he's still a registered Democrat intent on caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate if he wins. If he wanted to petition as an unaffiliated he could have done so. By creating this real/unreal political party (Connecticut for Lieberman) he guaranteed himself a promminent position on the ballot. --70.233.73.20 07:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) There are four possible classifications for Lieberman: Democrat Connecticut for Lieberman Independant Independant Democrat

I would argue the correct classification is in fact Democrat, here's why: Joe never left the party and is still registered with them (as reported above). Second, he still calls himself a democrat. Third, he will still act as a Democrat in the Senate and fourth he would have been a Democrat had he been permitted to be. Also consider the case of Hillary Clinton in New York, she was nominated by three parties and shows on the ballot three times, as a Democrat, a Working Families candidate and, yes, as the Independant Party canidate. Her party is not, and should not be, listed as Democrat, Working Families, Independant.

Connecticut for Lieberman is incorrect because he is not a member of this party.

Independant is wrong because Lieberman does not classify himself this way and one can be a member of the Independant in Connecticut and Lieberman is not a member of this party.

Independant Democrat is perhaps the most reflective title at explaining the elction but for one unfamiliar with Lieberman this title would be really confusing. What is the difference between Independant Democrat and Democrat?132.162.216.186 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted the above because I thought it was accurate at the time, however on Meet The Press today Lieberman said that he wanted to known as an Independant Democrat, so I guess my position has changed.132.162.216.186 18:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Polls

If there is to be a section on the poll predictions for the CT Senate general election, then it should be ongoing and objective, without a summary that will quickly be obsolete. The current commentary that polls show a tightening race is not really true. Major polls to date are as follows: - August 17 Quinnipiac showed Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 12 percent - August 21 ARG poll showed Lieberman leading by 2 points - August 21 Zogby poll showed Lieberman leading by 10 points

The most appropriate poll discussion is simply a list of major poll results as they come in.

Campaigning with Republicans

The following statement in the article is extremely misleading:

"On August 28, Lieberman campaigned with GOP Congressman Christopher Shays at a motorcycle rally."

Although it is technically true, in that Lieberman was campaigning at the same event as Shays, the entry makes it seem that Lieberman has endorsed Shays or that he is campaigning ON HIS BEHALF, neither of which is true. Their appearance at the same event was coincidental, and Lieberman has endorsed Shays' opponent. A number of politicans were campaigning at this event, including other major CT Democrats.

Whatever side one is on, this kind of misleading statement has no place in wikipedia.

Just want to second this, as it's really quite an important note to keep in mind. As the user below stated, Joe Gun never has supported any Republican Candidates, and any user adding a section that either says or even merely implies this should be eyed with extreme suspicion.IDontGetThatJoke 11:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman has has not endorsed any Republican candidates and has committed to caucusing as a Dem in the Senate. Dem leader Harry Reid has promised that Lieberman will keep his current committee positions.

Secondly, this entry conjectures that Lieberman's run will hurt Democratic Congressional candidates. Rahm Emanuel and some other Dem leaders have asserted the opposite: that by having two Dems in the race, Lamont and Lieberman will attract a full spectrum of Democratic voters who will all vote for the single Dem candidate for Congress.

To the extent this article states facts they should be truthful and not misleading.

To the extent it puts forth conjecture, both sides should be expressed.

Otherwise wikipedia is just propaganda and we will all have to pay Britannica to give us objective truth.

The segment links to a Fox News report that shows the event. "Campaigning together" would seem to include one candidate standing on stage and calling the other candidate in attendance a "national treasure." Watch the link - they report, you decide.

A question

Can someone explain to me why the religion professed by Lieberman does not appear in the infobox at the right of the article, even if in "edit this page" everybody can find that he is Jewish? I observed the same problem in many other articles dedicated to US Senators, but I can't find an answer. Checco 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was an issue with Template:Infobox Senator. It's fixed. Thanks for noticing and telling someone. --MZMcBride 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sembler fundraiser

I haven't contributed to this page for a month or so but I seen this on the London Guardian website and figured it worthy of mention on Lieberman's page. I'm a little wary that it may contribute to the perception that Lieberman is really a Republican but I think the fact that a notable Republican is holding big money fundraisers for Lieberman is worthy of mention regardless. Feel free to disagree. Also, the source may vanish after a couple of days as it's on the Guardian's 'Breaking News' page. 195.93.21.37 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing mediation

This case seems to be dead. I will close it; I can reopen it if necessary. --Ideogram 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular vote

Did he win the popular vote?--Gkklein 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DLC commentary

"Like Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt, Lieberman served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that has now been overtaken by conservative, corporatist Democrats with the goal of shifting the Democratic party away from traditionally populist and pro middle class positions." (Emphasis mine).

Gee, that sounds even-handed!

Lamont conceded

See [120]. JoshuaZ 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

Why is this sentence: "As the Democratic nominee for Vice-president in 2000, he was the first Jewish-American to win a plurality of the popular vote, with over half a million more votes than the Republican Vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney, but he was defeated in the Electoral College by a vote of 271 to 266. " in the lead?

Is the intent to underline that he was the first major party Jewish nominee for VP? Or to underline that he received more votes than any other American Jew has? Or to make claims about the 2004 election? Whichever it is, there should be a pared-down sentence focused on what is important enough to go in a Joe Lieberman lead. Jd2718 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He just became a Democrat again

See [121] 144.35.254.12 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it basically states what i said a month ago. He's both a Independent and a Democrat. dposse 19:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Palestine lobby

As far as I can tell, administrator 1ne protected the page because of the "anti-Palestine lobby" line in the header (we could be certain if the administrator left a message on this page, but he hasn't). If this was indeed the cause of the protection, would it be agreeable to insert a sentence in the lead that indicates that Lieberman has been a concistent, long-time, strong supporter of Israel? I think the editor who was reverting the 'anti-Palestine lobby' might accept this as a reasonable compromise, and it seems likely that Lieberman's supporters would believe this to be accurate and reasonable. Frankly, the current (protected) version buries his position pretty deep. Jd2718 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Lieberman supported anti-Palestinian causes is not the reason the Democratic Party chose him as a candidate for vice-president. Senators are not elected to meet a religious quota in the Senate, and senators who happen to be Protestant, Catholic, agnostic, or whatever are not normally identified in this way for their religious beliefs. The place to describe his religion is under Religion (2.1), not in the first sentence. The place to describe his foreign policy re Israel is under Foreign Policy (6.2), not as a reason for his vice-presidential candidacy. Singling out Jewish politicians for their religious beliefs seems to me to egregiously violate WP:NPOV. Avt tor 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version has his religion in the lead, but towards the back of the first paragraph. Lieberman's religion is significant, though I agree that it is not why he was chosen to be the VP candidate in 2000. The current version has a 3rd paragraph in the lead that touches some of the positions Lieberman is best know for, including his support of Israel. This seems to me appropriate. Jd2718 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Had to revert implied anti-Semitic bias ("Jewish American politician", "anti-Palestinian" in first paragraph) again! This kind of highlighted comment is not used with non-Jewish politicians, and therefore strongly violates WP:NPOV. Avt tor 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Party affiliation in userbox

Since it doesn't seem that this page was protected over Lieberman's party affiliation, I wonder if it couldn't be changed in his infobox to Democratic. Disuptes over his party affiliation have been resolved on the 2006 Senate elections page already, and having this article still stating his affiliation as "Independent" could cause confusion. Bridge Partner 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The text on the 2006 Senate elections page falls far short of a resolution. Certainly consensus has not been reached on this page. Further, the admin who protected this page never wrote on the talk page, never told us what the protect was for. My guess was the "Palestine lobby" phrase, but most discussion (and most edits) concerned what party should be next to his name.

What can a regular user do when an admin edits a protected page on a disputed issue? Jd2718 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the article is fully protected? I was under the impression that full protection is imposed for a limited time while a specific dispute is sorted out on the talk page. If that isn't the situation here, you might consider requesting that it be downgraded to semiprotection at WP:RFP#Current_requests_for_protection. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try that. Jd2718 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No need. I think that semi-protection would work for now. Also, it seemed that the affiliation was worked out, I apologize if I misunderstood, but I would caution y'all to try and work this out on talk once I downgrade to semi-protection, because edit-warring will get this page locked up again. Also, if the libelous info comes back again, it may need protection for wiki's own good again. Good luck! -- Avi 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Campaigning on the Sabbath

The article states or implies that Lieberman campaigned on the Jewish Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) during the 2000 Presidential election. No documentation is given that he did so. Here are quotes from various news articles showing that he did not campaign on the Sabbath at that time.

NOVEMBER --- JOE LIEBERMAN: Source of 'enormous pride' for U.S. Jews; ELECTION 2000: AROUND THE NATION The Atlanta Journal and Constitution November 8, 2000

Lieberman, 58, is an Orthodox Jew whose religious faith drew attention during the campaign because of his refusal to make appearances on the Jewish Sabbath.

--- Gore campaigns to the end USA TODAY November 8, 2000,

"I haven't at any moment felt insecure or uneasy or threatened," Lieberman told reporters on his campaign jet. "I haven't felt any slight indication of anti-Semitism. The reaction has been totally to the contrary."

He spoke of La Crosse, where the Liebermans spent their first Sabbath after the Democratic convention, dropping off from campaigning that Saturday to observe the Jewish day of rest.

OCTOBER

FACE TO FACE WITH LIEBERMAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL SEES BUSH BEHIND EVERY NADER VOTE, VOWS HIGH-TECH SUPPORT The Columbian (Vancouver, WA.) October 28, 2000

Q. As a Jew, you don't campaign on the Sabbath. What does the public need to know about you and your observation of the Sabbath if you are elected?

A. I appreciate the question. I know people reasonably have that on their minds. I've always distinguished in my public career between doing politics on the Sabbath, which I don't do, and fulfilling my governmental responsibility, which I always have done and would do if I were elected. The justification is that you are stopping on the Sabbath to honor God's creation. If you are in a position with a responsibility to protect God's creation people and that involves picking up a phone, going to a meeting, whatever, it's a higher obligation than the rest.

--- TRYING TO RAID NADER'S CAMP;LIEBERMAN MAKES DEMOCRATIC PITCH TO OREGON VOTERS Hartford Courant (Connecticut) October 28, 2000

After a stroll down the main street of Beaverton, Ore., chatting with voters, Lieberman wound up his day with a private visit with clergy and African American community members at the Bethel AME Church in Portland. He planned to spend the Sabbath here before flying tonight to Michigan, where he and Gore will begin a two-day campaign swing in Michigan and Wisconsin.

--- Running mates talk high-tech at Internet companies The Associated Press October 20, 2000

From Pennsylvania, Lieberman was heading to Washington for the Sabbath, the traditional Jewish day of rest, and Simchat Torah, which celebrates the end of one cycle of reading from the Torah and the start of a new one.

--- Gore Juggles Campaign, V.P. Duties Associated Press Online October 14, 2000

GOP running mate Dick Cheney, spending the weekend at his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, canceled an early-morning fly-fishing trip because of the icy weather. Cheney returns to the campaign trail Monday, traveling to Missouri and Florida. Democratic running mate Joseph Lieberman was off the campaign trail Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath.

--- SEPTEMBER

Smooth ride leaves time for some fun Cox News Service September 30, 2000

Although Lieberman continues to leave the campaign trail each week for the Jewish Sabbath, he has toned down his statements about religion in public life after complaints that he had crossed a line.

--- ROSH HASHANA;A TIME OF NEW BEGINNINGS, AND, FOR MANY, NEW QUESTIONS The Boston Globe September 29, 2000

In numerous interviews about their sermons, rabbis repeatedly compared Lieberman to baseball players Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, both of whom drew attention for their refusal to play ball on Jewish holidays. Lieberman has refused to campaign on the Jewish sabbath, and he is taking time away from his campaign this weekend to celebrate Rosh Hashana at his synagogue in New Haven and next weekend to mark Yom Kippur, most likely at his synagogue in the Georgetown section of Washington.

--- CAMPAIGN 2000; U.S.-ISRAELI TIE WILL BE PRIORITY, LIEBERMAN SAYS Los Angeles Times September 25, 2000

Lieberman spoke to the group at the end of a weekend trip to Chicago, where he spent the Sabbath with his wife, Hadassah, and attended two fund-raisers Saturday night with Gore that helped raise $ 2 million for the Democratic National Committee.

--- GEORGE W. BUSH ARRIVING ON MONDAY Palm Beach Post (Florida) September 7, 2000

On Friday, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, and his wife, Hadassah, will go to Miami Beach. With the Jewish Sabbath starting at sundown, the Liebermans will stay in Miami Beach until the Sabbath ends Saturday at sundown. The Liebermans are expected to worship at a Miami Beach synagogue.

---

AUGUST

--- ANTI-SEMITISM SURFACES IN DEMOCRATIC OFFICES Ha'aretz August 27, 2000

Last Friday, Lieberman made his first solo campaign appearance, in Delaware. He did not campaign yesterday, on the Jewish sabbath.

---

Energized Gore barnstorms Illinois, Iowa Agence France Presse -- English August 21, 2000

In the wake of his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, the candidate embarked on the Mark Twain riverboat to cruise down the Mississippi, in a photo-friendly campaign swing to court voters in middle-American states who often decide national US elections.

Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, split off from the campaign Friday to observe the Sabbath.

---

CAMPAIGN 2000; The Houston Chronicle August 26, 2000

The first person of Jewish faith on a major presidential ticket, Lieberman was returning home by sundown to observe the start of the Jewish Sabbath.

---

Businessman enjoys river trip with Gore Wausau Daily Herald (Wausau, WI) August 22, 2000

Lieberman left the boat Friday evening and returned to La Crosse, spending Saturday observing the Jewish Sabbath, Phil Bickley said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT). Meet the Press transcript.

“ MR. RUSSERT: You will caucus with the Democrats?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I will caucus with the Democrats. I said that to my constituents throughout. I’m going to caucus with the Democrats both because it’s good for my constituents in Connecticut, because I retained my seniority, I become a committee chair, but also I want to continue to work to bring the party back to its historic traditions of, of strength on national security, foreign policy and innovation, and progress in domestic policy—the, the Harry Truman/John F. Kennedy Democrat that, that I was raised to be.

But, but I’m going to be an independent because that is how and why I returned to the Senate. I was elected as an independent, I was elected, I believe, because I said to my constituents in Connecticut, “I’m, I’m as fed up with the partisanship in Washington as you are. I promise you I will put progress and, and patriotism ahead of partisanship and polarization.” So I’m going to—I am now an Independent Democrat, capital I, capital D. Matter of fact, the secretary of the Senate called my office and asked, “How do you want to be identified” and, and that’s it. Independent Democrat.

MR. RUSSERT: So you’ll be Senator Joe Lieberman, I/D, Connecticut.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, we checked with history and actually in the late ‘70s Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia listed himself as an Independent Democrat. You got to go back to the mid-19th century to find the last Independent Democrat.

”

[122]

So, can we please end this little revert war? Joe Lieberman is offically an "Independent Democrat", just as Senator Harry Byrd was in the 1970s. dposse 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lieberman cannot define his political party how he wants. Michael Steele, for example, repeatedly tried to misrepresent himself as a Democrat, but he's not. He was the Republican candidate. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is a Connecticut for Lieberman member who caucuses with the Democrats, the same as Barry Sanders is and Jim Jeffords was (not CFL'ers, but indys who caucused with a major party). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Stax. Joe Lieberman can call himself a "Green Eggs and Ham Democrat" if he likes, but that does not make him officially any such thing. His listing should be either "Independent (Caucuses with Democrats)", or list the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party he was elected under. He is officially (as you seem to misunderstand what "officially" means) a Connecticut for Lieberman ("Independent") senator who caucuses with the Democratic Party. Italiavivi 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, doesn't what you two are saying go against verifiability, not truth? It seems like it does. You see, i provided a proper source. Can you provide a recent source that says anything different, and make what came straight from the mouth of Lieberman wrong? dposse 03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. A Connecticut ballot. Lieberman was elected a Connecticut for Lieberman candidate, not an Independant Democratic candidate. That is his party. Period. End of discussion. He doesn't get to change that by dancing around on television and saying something else. That is his officially filed and elected party. Democratic party was included in my edit (which I've reverted to) to follow the style of Lowell Weicker and note that he says he'll still caucus with Dems and such. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that whatever was on the ballot is what party he belongs to. Like Jim Jeffords, senators are free to switch parties, regardless of what they ran as. If he informed the Secretary of the Senate that he will be an Independent Democrat, then he should be listed as such. While I don't dispute that "Connecticut for Lieberman" is a valid political party, I don't see Lieberman as a member any longer. --MZMcBride 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no active "Independent Democratic Party," or, if there is, Mr. Lieberman was not elected as a member of such. I suppose "Independent Democratic" or "Independent Democratic Party" could be put in the box following Democratic and Connecticut for Lieberman; he may or may not be the founding member of such a party. Settler 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone will need to provide a source for the "Independent Democratic Party" having been legally and officially created before it is added to the article. As for now, though, "Independent Democrat" is nothing more than a pet name Sen. Lieberman chose while chatting with Tim Russert. Nothing official or legal to it. Italiavivi 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they won't. There is no "Independent Democratic Party". "Independent" is an adjective, "Democratic Party" is a proper noun". Lieberman was elected on an independent ticket at the ballot, and he does not merely choose but will be accepted as a member of the Senate Democratic caucus. That makes him an independent and a Democrat. Calling him an "Independent Democrat" is more factually correct than calling him merely an "Independent" or a "Democrat". Avt tor 21:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He was not elected as an Independent. For the sake of a higher ballot position, he created and was elected as a member (one of currently... two) members of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Not as a Democrat (Ned Lamont ran as the Democrat), not as an Independent, but as Connecticut for Lieberman-er. A simple look at the United States Senate page will reveal thi9. Current Democratic Senators: 49, Lieberman not among them. Lieberman is a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party, a party he founded, and... well... the end. Any kind of revert war is simple ignorance. Preston 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly "independent" is an adjective. However, when capitalized as in "Independent Democratic Party," the implication is that is the name of a party.

There's a bit of speculation at work here, as Lieberman has hinted and talked around this (very weird) issue a bit, and we've been left to interpret his words. When the 2007 session begins, the list of senators in the US Senate page will either list him as "D - CT" or "I - CT" or some other way. (Currently, it lists him as "D - CT.") At that time, this article can be edited to reflect his official affiliation.--RattBoy 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

People..Lieberman is still officially a Democratic Senator until the new Senate is sworn in in January. Therefore his infobox should reflect that he is simply a 'Democrat' until that time. We can go ahead and have this little argument again then, but as of right now it is factually inaccurate to call him anything but a Democrat.--Mike 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5