Talk:Joe Lieberman

Archives
1 2 3

The LionO edit wars

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

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

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

This will likely be the one and only post I make regarding this. However, the DLC article itself says that the DLC wanted to move the party to the center. He cites one quote from the DLC that misrepresents it and Lieberman. I also note that he removed the questioning of the validity of Lieberman's voting record by Paul Bass in the Hartford Courant[1]. It violates WP:NPOV to use the voting record (which he looks liberal enough on) without the context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations

I'm working on the many statments made in the issues section that lack citations. My first question is does this link: [2] seem appropriate as a citation to show "anger" in this sentence: "Lieberman has been praised by many for his stance on regulating the sales of violent video games, while others have been angered by this position."

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

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

Discussion

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

I suggest the following change:

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

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

LionO 21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated September 27th, 2000:

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

Blah42 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Let's start over

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blah42 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

he seems pretty moderate

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

Popular Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation active?

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

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

Alchemistoxford

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

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

personal life

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

Content removed from lead for better placement elsewhere.

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

Coincidentally, Jackson in 1970 faced a primary challenge from liberal Democrats unhappy with a three-term senator's support for a controversial war, the same scenario that confronts Lieberman in 2006. Unlike "Scoop" Jackson, however, Lieberman has also been criticized for what is seen as conservatism on some domestic issues. [3]

Sandy 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Political Positions

I added/modified the following entries.

Abortions and Contraceptions

Lobbying

Stock Options

Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Word Count of Lieberman Wiki page

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

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

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

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

Biographies of living persons

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

Quotations

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

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

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

User Stephenzhu

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

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

References

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

Lieberman's internationalist foreign policy?

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

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

Watch for vandalism

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

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

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

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

NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

Lieberman voted against Bush's medicare plan. [4]

Lieberman is personally opposed to gay marriage, but supports state's rights to permit gay unions and also opposes constututional bans of gay marriage. He believes that gay couples should have the same rights and benefits as straight couples. [5] [6]

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

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

On the contrary, he did vote for Bush's energy bill. Simple Googling will confirm this. A summary of complaints against Liebmerman can be seen here. [7]4.43.97.227 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)(— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley Hirkum (talk • contribs) )

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

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

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

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

LionO, Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

get that primary source

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

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

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

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

Lieberman's Divorce

User StephenZhu wants to use this article: [8] as support for Lieberman and his first wife divorcing due to religious reasons. The article is clearly an anti-Lieberman article that in my mind violates NPOV. The bias of the article does not seem to warrant its use in the personal life section, especially when we are able to quote Lieberman's own words from In Praise of Public Life, in which he gives the reason for his divorce. I'm not saying you can't say that he divorced his wife due to religious differences (in fact, I think he even suggests as such in In Praise of Public Life, but I haven't had time to check). I am saying, however, that the anti-Lieberman source is not an appropriate source to use in this instance. LionO 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found another source, New York, which also cite religious differences as a reason. Ref [9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will write the reason this way.

Both the New York Magazine and the New Yorker report that one of the reasons for the divorce is their different level of religious observance. [10][11] --Stephenzhu 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

check cite. use ref element [12] --Stephenzhu 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New Yorker Article by Hendrik Hertzberg

It has been called an "anti-Lieberman" article.[13]I concede that the article is critical of Lieberman but I challenge anyone to find a specific anti-Lieberman reference. Compare that to a Anti-Bush article or a Anti-Castro article. I find the Hertzberg is filled with facts and less with emotion and rhetorics. --Stephenzhu 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

The quote contained in the New Yorker article is not mentioned in the New York Magazine article. The orginal quote is “levels of religious observance”.[14] The gist of it is coorborated in the New York Magazine article. [15] I am trying to reach a concensus on how to include the reference satisfactorily. --Stephenzhu 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the NY Metro article gives all three reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contraceptions In Conn

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

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

From what I've read, I think this is true. However, CT does not have such a law, and thus it would be against state constitution to require religious hospitals to offer contraceptives. The CT state constitution does not and cannot mandate Catholic hospitals to give emergency contraceptives to patients. It does, however, encourage them to do so, but does not mandate it due to separation of church and state. [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affirmative Action

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

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

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

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

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

HRC comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephenzhu wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial Record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a Criticism section

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

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

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

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

On Liberman denoucing Clinton

I added the following paragraph.

He[Lieberman] took the Senate floor to condemn the president's marital infidelity as "immoral" and denounce his "premeditated" deception. [17]

it is from a news story and all the text are coorborated. If you want to change it, please find another source which more satisfactory to you. In the text you cited, [18], the title is "Senator Joe Lieberman Attacks Clinton", go figure. --Stephenzhu 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the religion section that you keep copying and pasting. Note the poor grammar, the duplication and the incorrect terminology: - - Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. He was not very observant in 1965 and his first wife is a Reform Jew. Since 1967 death of Lieberman's grandmother, who is a a deeply religious immigrant, Lieberman found renewed interest in terms of religious observance. His second wife, Hadassah, is an Orthodox Jew, who is more conservative than him. "Hadassah calls herself my right wing", says Lieberman. " In Lieberman's 1988 upset of GOP incumbent Senator Lowell Weicker, his religion was mostly discussed in terms of his inability to campaign on Saturdays. But that changed when Gore chose Lieberman as the running mate. [19] "He refers to himself as observant, as opposed to Orthodox, because he doesn't follow the strict Orthodox code and doesn't want to offend the Orthodox, and his wife feels the same way," said a Lieberman press officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Liebermans keep their home Kosher and observe + Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew. He was not very observant in 1965 and his first wife was a Reform Jew. Since 1967 death of Lieberman's grandmother, who was a Jewish immigrant who observed Orthodox traditions, Lieberman found renewed interest in Jewish Orthodoxy. His second wife, Hadassah, also an Orthodox Jew, is more traditional than him. "Hadassah calls herself my right wing", says Lieberman. " In Lieberman's 1988 upset of GOP incumbent Senator Lowell Weicker, his religion was mostly discussed in terms of his inability to campaign on Saturdays. But that changed when Gore chose Lieberman as the running mate. [20] "He refers to himself as observant, as opposed to Orthodox, because he doesn't follow the strict Orthodox code and doesn't want to offend the Orthodox, and his wife feels the same way," said a Lieberman press officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Liebermans keep their home Kosher and observe the Sabbath. Nonetheless, some Orthodox Jews have voiced their concerns about their omissions, such as Hadassah's infrequent covering of her head. [21] - - 1) "deeply religious" should be changed to "who observed Orthodox traditions". You are saying the former, but mean the latter. - 2) conservative is an inappropriate word. More traditional is more appropriate. - 3) Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew. To say he is an Orthodox Jew is too general - he could be a Hasid! - 4) In general, use "traditional" instead of "religious" - 5) Watch your tenses - they are all off. Use correct grammar - 6) There is no need to include a duplication of the text, as you seem to continue to do. - 7) Saying that there are orthodox people who don't think he's orthodox enough is obvious and isn't worth mentioning. That's like saying there are fundamentalist christians who don't think a christian is christian enough. It's obvious and, without the term Modern Orthodox, it makes it sound like Lieberman is a religious hypocrite when in fact Hasidim, Libuvich, Lakewood Jews do not think that Modern Orthodox is true Judaism. That's not a problem with Lieberman - that's a problem with one movement disagreeing with another. LionO 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jesse Helms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the current source: [22] It is bogus. LionO 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think this is bogus, but HERE YOU GO, LIONO. Salon.com. You are being very difficult here. It's getting hard to assume good faith in your case. And if you call this source bogus, then find one yourself. There are a million. [23] Smedley Hirkum 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I also want an explanation why stephenzhu removed this:

Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have. [24]

and this:

In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [25]

and this:

Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided medicaid treatment for people with HIV. [26]    

and this:

Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender. [27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That makes absolutely no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not true. Clinton beat bush by more than 18 points. [28] Smedley Hirkum 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affirmative Action

Some editor put,

As a college student, Lieberman marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and helped black voters in Mississippi register for a vote during a time when white college students were killed for doing just that. [29]

Although Lieberman criticized aspects of affirmative action programs in the mid-1990s, he continues to support affirmative action. [30]

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

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

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

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

Need More Substance, Not Slant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lieberman voted no on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. [[31]] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."

In 2004, Lieberman scored 88 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality, which called him "a wolf in sheep's clothing, with a secret mission to outlaw homosexuality."[32]

Lieberman cosponsored the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations act of 2003, which provided the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and spouses of federal employees currently have. [[33]]

In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [[34]]

Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV. [35]

Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender. [36]

In 1993, Lieberman joined 11 other Democrats in voting for the Improving America's School Act of 1993, S.1513, which contained an amendment by Jesse Helmes that prohibited federal funding for schools that encouraged or supported homosexual behavior. [37]

Also in 1993, Lieberman voted with 29 other Democrats to prohibit HIV positive imigrants from entering the United States. [38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees

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

He voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.[39]

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

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

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

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

violent games

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

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

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

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

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

Advocate, Junk Source??

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

Voting Record

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

On constant reverting

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

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

LionO's Agenda

There are some criticism of LionO's editing style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

83.44.38.86

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

ADA and ACU rating

this stupid rating is out of whack. now the article contains 1999 rating. 2002 ADA rating is 85/100, [40] 2005-6? rating 81 [41] his liberal ADA lifetime rating of 81 [42]

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

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

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