Talk:Joe Lieberman

Archives
1 2

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

-- 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)

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. Second, we are discussing here not about specifics, but about principle, and I never suggested or implied in any way that non-verifiable information should be used. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)