Jump to content

Talk:Joe Lieberman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Foodmarket (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 9 August 2006 (Party status should change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Activepol

Archive

Archives


1 2 3 4

Reliable sources

Checks needed on the following for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP (which demands only the highest quality sources in biographies of living persons).

There may be others; these are only the ones I saw on a quick glance. Are the edus self-published? If so, they must be deleted per WP:BLP. Blogs are not reliable sources. I wasn't sure on some of the others. Sandy 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamespot website is owned by the tech news media company, CNET and is a well-known source for video game-related articles but it is debatable for an American politican biography. It could have a better source. That story could have be easily replaced with the Reuters article that was being cited by Gamespot, however I can't find it. I'm assuming Reuters gets rid of their old syndicated articles. --4.253.35.149 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I found it. I will replace the Gamespot link with Reuters/Forbes. --4.253.35.149 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Website Hacked" Claims

I added a section about this, with all the info I have. If anyone has anything to add, please do. And please discuss drastic edits here before going ahead and deleting a whole paragraph or two.--Zaorish 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaorish, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP; any poorly-sourced criticism on BLPs is deleted from article *and* talk pages. Sandy 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I was not aware of that policy. Thanks for showing it to me.

If WP:BLP demands a source for any news at all, then I can go and put back the same information with pointers to the news articles I got it from. I don't have time now, but I'll do it later.

-->I don't understand what you mean by "criticism", I was only reporting the *claims* of two sides of a story now under investigation. Could you please explain? And, if you consider what I wrote "criticism", then there is boatloads of that stuff in the talk archives here. Why is it not deleted?

--Zaorish 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaorish, I can't keep up with all of it: I can only keep up with what I see. Statements added to BLPs should be well referenced. There are plenty of places where you can source those comments: just do it. Sandy 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV?

I clicked here to see the NPOV rational but there's none here! Why is that tag still on the page? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.249.168 (talkcontribs)

Check the archives. Smedley Hirkum 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

The endorsements section is now irrelevant since Joe lost the primary. I added a little note above the endorsements stating they were inaccurate since so many people who endorsed Joe in the primary have endorsed Ned in the general. Can we delete this and instead link to the Connecticut Senate race page?? --Smedley Hirkum 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving it somewhere; not needed here. Sandy 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Sure, he lost the primary, but he's still running. The endorsments are still accurate. dposse 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: I'd like to see them on the election page, rather than his personal page, to help keep the more static info here, and the dynamic info there. It's too hard to keep up with things in so many places. Sandy 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party status should change

moved from: [1] dposse 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this page is unprotected, Lieberman's party status should be changed from Democratic Party (US) to Independent (politician). He has stated his intention to run against the Democratic candidate. Thesmothete 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't he both? Independent means that he's not running for the Party in this years election, but that doesn't mean that he isn't still a democrat. Why should it be only Independent when he's only being a Independent for this one election? dposse 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by way of example, what if he was "for this one election" running as a Republican? Would we still call him a Democrat? We might say that he was a Democrat, but not that he is one. The template uses both, and I think that makes sense. But he should not be listed unqualfiadly as a Democrat in any general sense, such as had been the case in the opening sentence. Thesmothete 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then not only would he be going against his political beliefs by running as a republican, he would destroy any chance of winning by alienating himself from a completely blue state. It should be listed as both because he is still a democrat, but he's running in this election as a Independent. dposse 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that's missing the point. The point is that to be a Democratic politician, by definition you must support (or at least not oppose, certainly not run against) the Democratic nominee for the office. You can't run in and lose the Democratic primary and then merrily still be a Democratic candidate for office. Otherwise, why would the Democrats have a primary at all? Thesmothete 05:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article 8, section 1 of the Democratic party charter states that the Democratic Party is open to all who desire to support the party and who wish to be known as Democrats. If he decides to run as an Ind, Lieberman is showing he doesn't support the party.--riffic 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not until and unless the papers are filed. Expect every senior member of the party to sit on him --Gorgonzilla 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had something like 48 percent of the vote. The petition should be ok. dposse 05:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman is still a democrat. This article states infomation about his past, when he was a democrat. His political views are democratic on the Political spectrum. He is just running as an Independent as a title so he can keep his job. It should be listed as both because not only is he still a democratic, this article states factual content about his past where he was a democrat. I added a reference to the "political party" Independent thing so than it shows that he is running as a Independent in this one election. dposse 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, Lieberman may have had a fighting chance if he had the "balls" to appear on the Colbert Report for his interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagreen20614 (talkcontribs)

Please sign your talk page entries by putting 4 tildes ~~~~ after your entry. Sandy 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lieberman's concession speech last night and his appearance on CNN's American Morning today represent a de facto resignation from the Democratic Party. As such, his party status should change to solely "independent," even after he drops out of the Senate race. ---FoodMarket talk! 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]