Talk:Joe Lieberman

Talk, mostly prior to 2005

Most of the inital text from this page is from http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsite/biography.cfm?lowsrc=true

For anyone not familiar with American politics and Lieberman himself, the article as it currently reads leaves two questions unanswered:

(1) Which party does Lieberman belong to? democrat of course (Well, you could conclude this from the sentence about the changing majority, but isn't that asking too much?)

(2) When did Lieberman run for vice president?

I don't know enough about the subject, so could someone else please add these essential pieces of information? --KF 17:29 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Video Game Censorship

Dammit, stop taking the word out unless you have a citation where Lieberman states that he opposes restricting the content of video games. There are many times that he has said that some content should not be available.

Joe vs. Joseph

Page move: 64,600 (Joseph Liberman) vs. 86,400 (Joe Liberman) on google. --Jiang

Here in good old Europe Lieberman is always referred to as "Joseph", never as "Joe" (if he is mentioned at all), so it's hard for me to understand the move. --KF 04:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here in the good old US of A, he's always referred to as "Joe". It's the "Bill Clinton" argument -- use the name he's refered by. BTW, could someone expand on the upset victory in his first election? Why was it an upset? Whom was he competing against? RickK 04:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In Texas he always seems to be "Joseph Lieberman," but I haven't watched too closely, so I'm not sure. Jdavidb 20:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here in Illinois I've always seen him called "Joseph," likewise most online coverage (at least from the gamer side, he's not our favorite person) seems to refer to him as Joseph. I say we move it to Joseph.--Lord Shitzu 15:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

In PA, when he is talked about, Joseph is used, but it seems like both are kind of common, so I'll change it to Joseph "Joe" Lieberman. How does that sound? Er... right after someone explains how you change the title of an article. I changed the infobox, though. --clevomon

Picking one or the other is better than using quotation marks in that way, in my opinion. For what it's worth, I've always heard him referred to as Joe. —Cleared as filed. 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then. I fixed it. It still might be nice to come to a decision, though. --clevomon 16:57, 8 February 2006

Stance on violent games?

I noticed there wasn't much mention on his highly conservative stance on violence in computer/video-games, should this be worked into the article? 05:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Watergate and Weicher?

The Watergate scandal was 14 years before Lieberman was elected to teh Senate and was pretty much forgotten by then. Lieberman's election was made possible in part by the change in the GOP. It is true that Lieberman was seen as the more conservative of the two candidates and many conservative Republicans supported him. William F. Buckley, then editor of National Review (a leading conservative journal), even ran a joke campaign at the time called "Buckley's for Lieberman."

I was a young GOP activist in New York those days. I remember returning the local canvass on election night and when the t.v. said that Weicher had lost, people were actually happy.

I have edited the main page accordingly.

"Jewish American"

The opening words in Lieberman's article are "Jewish-American"? Whoever inserted this epithet should be ashamed. Do we label Kennedy "Irish-American" or Giuliani "Italian-American" (or either of them "Catholic-American")? As I understand it, second or third-generation Americans are spared these qualifiers.

Hes Jewish, hes American, therefore there is nothing wrong with saying "Jewish-American". Although this article has a tad to much on him being Jewish, its not like hes an Orthodox Jew, if he was Orthodox it would be fair to mention it, hes Reform, so hes basically as Jewish as Vladimir Putin.

First of all, Senator Lieberman *is* an Orthodox Jew, and proudly identifies himself as such, as he did during the 2000 presidential campaign. Secondly, Jews in America do not identify themself as "Jewish-Americans", with the possible exception of the most wishy-washy Reform Jewish. I have heard plenty of people use the terms "Jewish person" and "Jewish-American" because they think the very *word* Jew is an insult. The word Jew is not an insult - is is a perfectly valid way to describe someone who was either born Jewish, or has converted to Judaism. Nobody is doing Jews any favors by avoiding the word Jew. So when is the word an insult, I hear you ask? When it's used in obviously derogatory concepts, like as a verb ("he jewed me" connoting avarice) or with a modifying word ("a dirty Jew", "a cheap Jew", etc. etc.). Oversensitive, nervous gentile liberals, relax: it's perfectly alright to call a Jew a Jew.

Thanks to the June 12 "vandalism removal" the first paragraph of the article now makes no sense.

Don't worry. I've reverted it back. marbeh raglaim 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

faith

Lieberman has also faced some conflict from secular members of his own party who have questioned whether his religious values would interfere with his ability to impartially represent people of all (or no) faiths.

Why doesn't anyone ask secularists whether their lack of religious views would interfere with their ability to impartially represent religious people?

 Answer: They do. Constantly.

Photo

Who changed his photo back to the older version? I believe to best represent him, one should use the most recent official picture.

"Lieberal"

I deleted the following sentence:

Satirical writer Robert Lanham coined Lieberal, based on Lieberman's name and beliefs, as a term for conservative Democrats.

I've never heard of Lanham or "lieberal" (Lanham's Wikipedia entry looks suspiciously like a vanity entry, see 69.203.207.56 contributions), and a Google search shows that this is not a common term by any stretch of the imagination. -- FRCP11 14:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Gang of 14

I really don't get why the second paragraph in this section is there. It doesn't seem to fit to me and it is redundant from the introduction of the article.Elipongo 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Joementum" article

I suggest we merge the Joementum article in to this article - considering it doesn't really give enough information to warrent it's own page on Wikipedia. I even suggest we cut it down to an external link in the presidential campaign category. --Toddbloom7 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

whoa, no so fast Todd. Joementum is here to say if I do say so myself. --Ryan Utt 02:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman resemblence to Senator Palpatine

It's valid for the trivia section. Senator Joseph Lieberman does bear what many feel to be an incredible resemblence to the young Senator (and later Emperor) Palpatine from Star Wars. I challenge anyone reading this to look it up for themselves and deny it. Although George Lucas may have casted Ian McDiarmid in the role of the Palpatine character prior to Liebermans rise to the national stage, the resemblence is definitely worthy of mention. I would appreciate it if certain Wikipedia members would stop constantly deleting it, just because its true and it strikes a nerve with them.

I must agree with the aforementioned. I have taken the liberty of reposting the claim, and also providing what i feel to be unassailable proof of the resemblence. Some have said that this is a frivolous thing to include on an encycolopedic website. I would agree if the fact was posted anywhere else but the trivia section. Trivia, by its very definiton is trvial or fivolous knowledge. Bearing that in mind, I find the case against the Lieberman Palpatine resemblence to be short-sighted.

.....AND perhaps even partisan?

I would suggest you pay better attention to the Wikipedia policy on original research. marbeh raglaim 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman's religious identification

Lieberman is noted for being an observant Jew, and attends an Orthodox synagogue, though he is careful not to describe himself as "Orthodox,"[4] and does not wear a yarmulke in public.

As an Orthodox Jew myself, I consider the above statement biased and misleading for a number of reasons. First of all, it is perfectly valid and accepted for an Orthodox Jew not to wear a yarmulke to his job if it will interfere (though in practice few Orthodox Jews today exercise this leniency). For a more complete explanation, go to the following link:

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask286.htm#Q1

Second, a lot of people have misinterpreted the Larry King interview where Lieberman said he prefers to identify as "observant" rather than "Orthodox." Lieberman was not placing himself outside of the community commonly referred to as "Orthodox"; he was simply preferring one label to another. Orthodox Jews did not invent the word "Orthodox"; as the Wikipedia article on Orthodox Judaism correctly observes, the term was applied to them by the Reform in the nineteenth century, and it stuck. To this day, there are many Orthodox Jews who prefer to call themselves "observant." In fact, the most frequent term that Orthodox Jews use amongst themselves is the Yiddish term frum, which simply means "pious."

In a much less-quoted interview from a week after the one with Larry King, Lieberman began a sentence with the words "The fact that I'm Orthodox...." You can see for yourself at the following website:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/lieberman_8-11.html

I think this should settle the question about Lieberman's self-identification. marbeh raglaim 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to the following:

"Lieberman attends an Orthodox synagogue and identifies as an observant Jew."

I removed the part about him not wearing a yarmulke in public, since I don't think it has much bearing on this question. If anyone wants to modify the sentence further, we can discuss it, but I see this article isn't currently very active so I have had to make the changes on my own. marbeh raglaim 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

63.138.155.98

Senator Lieberman is well-known as being one of the few non-partisan members left in the United States Senate. He appears to have no alterior motives or political motives, he simply speaks for what he believes is right.

POV - RemovedVegasjon 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Liberman is pretty much a partisan hack, a republican partisan hack--152.163.100.69 01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Lieberman has consistently gotten a high rating from the Americans for Democratic Action, and a low rating from the American Conservative Union. This deserves mention in the article. marbeh raglaim 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it should (and currently does). While I tried to balance the article somewhat with some sources, I definitely believe that evidence on all sides should be presented. It's also true, however, that he often votes against Democratic filibusters and then against the Republican bill to keep his ADA ratings high, when the filibuster was the only way to stop it; and also rhetorically is the kindest prominent Democrat to Bush (unless you count Zell Miller, who I'm sure no longer considers himself a Democrat). KP 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm the one who added that information into the article, after writing the above comment. In some ways, Lieberman strikes me as a Democratic version of John McCain. McCain is also viewed with some suspicion by party regulars, as if he's winking at the other party; yet his voting record is still basically conservative, just as Lieberman's is basically left-of-center. Both men have reputations as independent thinkers who speak their mind, and they both are more opportunistic than their admirers admit. Just as Lieberman had uncharacteristic words of praise for Louis Farrakhan apparently to attract the left toward the end of the 2000 election, McCain did something similar recently when he praised Jerry Falwell (whom he'd once denounced) to attract the right-wing. In short, Lieberman and McCain are sort of political mirror images of each other. marbeh raglaim 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't view them as mirror images. The closest thing to a mirror image of John McCain among Democrats might be former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey (not to be confused with 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, a traditional Democrat). Bob Kerrey definitely believes in Democratic principles and would never work very closely with Bush-- you didn't see McCain work closely with Clinton, either, the way Lieberman does with Bush. Kerrey is a maverick who almost killed Clinton's deficit reduction package, and disagrees here and there with Democratic principles, but would be denouncing Bush very strongly if in the Senate, although voting with him on occasion when he agreed with him.

The closest thing to a Republican mirror image of Lieberman, IMO, was James Jeffords before Jeffords became an independent. Jeffords thought as much like the opposing party as his own, and for example was the one Republican to brank ranks and publicly support Clinton's health care plan. Republicans believed that if Clinton got his health care plan through, it would realign the electorate in favor of the Democrats. Jeffords didn't care, and backed it anyway. McCain probably opposed the plan on its merits, but either way would have opposed it rather than realigning the electorate to favor Democrats. Clinton would never have called McCain his favorite Republican, and I'd be shocked if McCain had appeared on Al Franken's liberal radio talk show (Lieberman goes on Sean Hannity's regularly).

The difference between a "maverick" party member like McCain or Bob Kerrey and a DINO/RINO like Lieberman or Jeffords, is that the mavericks still care a lot about the health of their party, where the DINO/RINOs don't care much, partially because DINO/RINOs think the opposing party has as much merit as their own-- which make them loved by the opposing party but offensive to members of their own. While you might point to Lieberman's voting record and say it's very much in line with his own party's-- and it's certainly fair to include that on the page-- here in the discussion section I will point out that Lieberman helps the Republicans on procedural votes and other things that don't show up on the record. KP 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources, please. What procedural vote has Lieberman helped Republicans on contrary to official Democrat whip policy? The Alito filibuster doesn't count, because there were eighteen Democrats who recognized a filibuster was inappropriate vis-a-vis a Supreme Court nomination of a well-qualified candidate. There are principled reasons to oppose filibusters. -- FRCP11 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not on the main page, but rather on the talk page, because I don't have sufficient sources to link to, to justify its inclusion on the main page. I do know of at least one other filibuster he definitely voted to break, and that was on the bankruptcy bill the banks wrote. I also know he issued a rebuke to Democrats who criticized Bush's lack of integrity, and that I can cite a source for.[1]

The main page needs to be NPOV, and I put nothing on there that wasn't well-cited. On this discussion page I don't think that applies so much. If I were a politician I'd be regarded as either a moderate or maverick Democrat, like Bill Clinton or Bob Kerrey, so I'm not some left-extremist, and I was for the Iraq war for a long time. I had no major problem with Lieberman until he became what I view as a Bush ally, rather than just a conservative Evan Bayh-style Democrat. And to me the Alito filibuster counts, because I think Alito is like Robert Bork was, well qualified but a conservative ideologue who should be stopped by any legal means necessary due to his extreme views. KP 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still see plenty of similarities with McCain. It may be true that President Clinton never called McCain his favorite Republican, but many Democrats have in fact expressed that very sentiment, and likewise many Republicans have long considered McCain a closet liberal, despite his conservative voting record. In recent times, McCain has attempted to shatter this image by showing that he embraces the Republican program, and he has turned off many liberals or independents who once supported him.

Lieberman's career has numerous parallels to this, though not necessarily at the same time. He was long viewed by people on both the left and the right as a closet conservative. In the 2000 election, though, he tried to show that he fit the Gore ticket, and many Republican critics accused Lieberman of moving leftward by abandoning his previous commitment to such issues as social security privatization, opposition to affirmative action, and cracking down on the entertainment industry. I'm not saying these charges were all justified (I think some of them were oversimplifications of Lieberman's nuanced positions on certain issues), but they in many ways echo the criticisms that are now being leveled against McCain by people at the left and center. Of course since the 2000 election Lieberman has gone back to his moderate-Democrat roots, and his unqualified support for the Iraq war has caused him to lose credibility in the eyes of many Democrats. marbeh raglaim 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alito--whose views are mainstream--had a cloture vote of 72-25. The Bankruptcy Bill--which was desperately needed because of systematic abuse of the old law that hurt honest consumers--passed the Senate 74-25 after a 69-31 cloture vote. Both had substantial bipartisan and public support. Lieberman's support for the Iraq war merely shows that he's consistent and doesn't abandon positions for political reasons, as compared to Edwards, and Kerry. (And Bill Clinton continues to support the war publicly, but is able to shut up about it.) -- FRCP11 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alito's views are not at all mainstream, unless you think "mainstream" means the people have no rights. He's the right wing's ultimate dream justice, or at least I agree with this article from Slate that explains why.[2] He's the Bork they never got.

The bankruptcy bill was awful. The banking industry is by a large margin the most profitable industry in America (a fact pointed out by defenders of the oil industry; even now the oil industry is not raking it in like the banking industry), so they can afford to take losses when someone endures catastrophic events that force bankruptcy-- which is the most common reason. That's why Clinton had vetoed a weaker version of the bill. The one Lieberman voted for cloture on was worse, in that the banking industry practically wrote it.

Note also that there are very few blue state Democrats who voted for cloture on both of those votes. One must tolerate some pandering to conservative voters on the part of red state Democrats, as they have to in order to stay in office.

I'm not especially bothered by Lieberman's war stance. I'm not sure that Clinton's was the same, as I remember seeing Clinton before the war express reservations about it. I was for the war, realizing my mistake around the time that John Murtha did, that it would be great if we could install a democratic government in Iraq but that it was unclear whether our continued presence there was helping or hurting, and that the cost in lives of remaining there for years wasn't worth it. But Lieberman's position does not offend me. I think Joe Biden's is similar. Even his others wouldn't be such a big deal, except...

My real problem is that Lieberman seems to want to help Bush politically in the United States. Neither Bill nor Hilary Clinton, nor conservative red state Democrat Evan Bayh, nor war supporter Joe Biden, has intentionally given Bush political help in general (as opposed to supporting certain Bush policies). They all do what Democrats should, and try to hurt Bush's popularity as much as they can, still supporting specific initiatives they feel he's right on. On Social Security, where Democrats should have united to blast Bush a new one, Lieberman tried to smooth things over and compromise. Lieberman called for Democrats to stop bringing up Bush's lack of integrity. He's a Bush ally, and once you cross that line you're a DINO in my opinion.

"Constitutional place for faith in our public life"

I noticed that Lieberman's religion was listed under "political views." Religion is not a political view--unless it can be related to his politics. That's why I stuck a quote into that section, where Lieberman calls for a "a constitutional place for faith in our public life." [3] marbeh raglaim 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stakes of 2006 elections

By the numbers, Democrats do not have "their best chance of taking over the Senate" since 2000. They DO have a near-guaranteed chance for a pickup or two, though, with very little chance (as in 02 and 04) of losing seats. Democrats are down more seats than in 02 or 04, and in each of those years they saw a legitimate chance to take over the Senate, but a comparable chance of losing a few seats. In 2006, only the greatest liberal optimists think we will get 50 democratic senators+Bernie Sanders. However, only the most optimistic right-wingers think Democrats won't pick up any seats. As a Democratic politico, I wanted the article to reflect that.

That said, I'm glad the article mentions the stakes in 2006 and what Democrats may lose by giving time and energy to Ned Lamont.

Merging trivia with main section

I took the following out of the trivia:

*Because of his conservative views, Lieberman has often been described by critics as a DINO, and criticized for his willingness to take on his own party when he views them as wrong.[4] However, He has consistently received a high rating from the Americans for Democratic Action and a low rating from the American Conservative Union. [5]

I placed the essential information in the main section. Trivia should be reserved for tidbits like "Lieberman is 5 feet 8 inches tall" or "George H.W. Bush once banned broccoli from the White House." Things that aren't of great importance, but which might be of interest to...well, the sorts of people who like to collect trivia. Lieberman's political orientation is far too relevant to belong in the trivia section. marbeh raglaim 07:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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.[6][7][8][[9], his opposition to gay marriage[10]; his attacks on other Democrats [11][12][13][14][15]; his support of Republican talking points[16][17][18]; his efforts to kill a gift-ban for lobbyists[19]; and, in the wake of the Enron collapse, his role in blocking rules that would require corporations to expense stock options.[20]"

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)

"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)

LionO's edits

Oh, Lord! He went in and took out every single negative (to a Democrat) fact about Lieberman. He added a few positive facts (if true; I couldn't find evidence that NARAL had made an endorsement in the primary), and had he just done that, that would have been fine. There's some really funny (in a bad way) stuff about what he did, putting in NARAL's endorsement (if it was even in fact made) while deleting the facts that NOW and Connecticut Choice Voice oppose him. He turned this page into a Lieberman campaign ad. -KP 22:25, 29 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)

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.

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.

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.[21][22].

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.

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)