Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Mediation request

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Lieberman voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.[1] 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."[citation needed]
In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88% out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality."[2]
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.[3]
In 1996, Lieberman cosponsored the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[4]
Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV.[5]
Lieberman has adopted a non-discriminatory policy in employment decisions, which include sexual orienation and gender.[6]
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.[7]

Stephenzhu wants the section to read as follows:

Lieberman voted no on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. [[8]] In 2003, in response to the Massachusetts ruling that sanctions gay marriage, Lieberman stated, "although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," and "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's [Massachusetts Supreme Court] ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."
In 2004, Lieberman scored a rating of 88% out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality."[9]
In August, 1994, Jesse Helms (R-SC) and Bob Smith (R- NH) proposed an amendment, S.AMDT.2434, to Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA), that is, S.1513, that would prevent federal funding for schools that "implement or carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle." This amendment would cut off funding for schools that teach tolerance of homosexuality or provide gay-sensitive counseling. [10] [11][12]Lieberman voted for the amendment. [13] 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.[14][15]

I find his write-up to be problematic because

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

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

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

If I may butt in here, LionO has insisted that opinion columns may not be used as a source at all--especially in instances when primary sources are extremely hard to find--even when we have multiple secondary sources confirming a fact. Is there any Wikipedia policy concerning this? I have never heard of anything prohibiting using reliable secondary sources (such as Salon.com) when primary sources are difficult to locate. Smedley Hirkum 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I never said anything of the sort. Second, Ideogram said above not to comment on each other's statements. Please remove your comment. You may, if you choose, post your current problems with the article LionO 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
With respect to opinion columns and criticism, I want to remind you of the very strong wording in WP:BLP: this is a very new policy, requiring the best possible sources for criticism. Sandy 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. And there is no reason to use an opinion column in place of a primary source (speech or interview) when a primary source is available. LionO 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


Do you suppose you all could put your mediation comments on the mediation page, and give us a link here? The article is getting slammed by vandals, there's work to be done, so it would help if the mediation were on its own page. With an election in a few days, this article is not going to stand still while you all mediate. Just an idea, Sandy 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not quite clear how to do that. The good news is that it looks like it was ONE vandal who was slamming the article and he was just banned. Hooray! The other good news is that it looks like all editors who have frequented this site - Stephenzhu included - have tried to stop the vandalism. We are united in this. LionO 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I requested semi-protection, so now we've got a break from the vandalism, and you all can solve your disagreements without also having to fight anon vandals :-) There should be a talk page associated with the mediation request – hopefully, the mediator will agree you all can sort it out over there. In the meantime, I'm continuing with ref cleanup, and I'm finding a fairly decent article. The sources are generally good, so you all don't have as big of a problem as I thought :-) Sandy 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just checked WP:MEDCAB, and I don't see your mediation there. Sandy 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Right - I'm confused about how to request it. Where do I actually post the request? LionO 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You've already got a mediator, so there must have been an old case. You might not need to request a new one. If you both agree to take the issue to a separate talk page, Ideogram may open a new page associated with his own user page – best to ask Ideogram. Good luck :-) Sandy 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
oops, Lion, I see that Ideogram strongly suggests (at the top of this page) that you file a request at WP:MEDCAB. Sandy 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Avi! Sandy 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! LionO 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Missed the events here. User LionO repeated called me "dishonest" by name. Facing this accusation, I don't need to assume good faith from this user. On the contrary, throughout the conversation, I have maintained my coolness and keep a civil conversation. My record in the discussion page can prove that. LionO has had similar ventures before. LionO is a single-issue editor and fight editor wars with User KP as well. KP testified his experience in the page which I cannot find now on this newly formed page.
Evidence No.1 : 21:12, 2 August 2006 LionO (Talk | contribs) (→Gay rights - Stephenzhu is dishonest. Even Smedley said the section should be 70/30, which my version is. Your version is 10/90)
--Stephenzhu 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've seen LionO's good faith efforts, explanation of the issue, and Stephenzhu's response, I support LionO's more balanced version. Sandy 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)



nothing about Lieberman beating black republican congressman Gary Franks?

Contradiction tag

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

In my opinion that tag can be removed. The person who posted it was someone who got into a mediation dispute with me a while ago about this page. Ideogram was the mediator. When he didn't like Ideogram's advice, he left - fine. His choice. But when he saw Stephenzhu edit warring with me today, he showed up, praised Stephenzhu, criticized Ideogram and then left the tag, which was one of his disputes - he didn't like how the DLC was portrayed on this page. Given all that is going on, I left it up, but I feel it should be removed. LionO 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lion. Will see what others say before removing, but the tags are overkill. Sandy 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at what the Democratic Leadership Council article says, with a NPOV, about the organization.
"The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation[1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy."
I have no problem with that description. It is balanced. And in fact I'm not anti-DLC, although I think by its strong support of Lieberman it hurts its credibility (at least with me).
This article refuses to say the truth, that it was created by "moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders", a neutral and true statement in the article. Its description of the DLC is not consistent with that of the Wikipedia DLC article itself. The DLC article itself is fair and accurate.
Ideogram was not the mediator. He stepped in to try to mediate while we waited for a mediation cabal mediator to step in. I did criticize what he did, because either (1) Wikipedia policy has no problem with deliberately misleading people if you use verifiable quotes to do so-- which wouldn't be his fault but Wikipedia's-- and if true I know not to trust Wikipedia except in controversy-free areas, (2) He was wrong in his interpretation, or (3) He wanted to help LionO paint Lieberman in a positive, not balanced, light. I know, assume good faith and that it was #1 or #2. Fine. If it's #1, I know Wikipedia blows, though.
The tags say that something in the article is disputed. If it is in dispute, there should be a tag stating so. It is in dispute. I've decided to stay out of edit wars as they are far too taxing, and mostly away from Wikipedia, but I am angry with the removal of tags and this proposed removal as well. -KP 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is misleading anyone. If you have verifiable quotes of your own you want to add, go ahead. --Ideogram 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't even follow all of that, but if you don't like something a reliable source says, then you solve that by presenting counterbalancing information from another reliable source. Otherwise, we engage in original research. We need an actionable problem upon which to base tags being added to articles: it can't just be that you don't like something a reliable source says. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the problem. Sandy 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

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

Yes - in its current state I am fine with it. It is the reverts that Stevenzhu was doing throughout the day that I felt were egregious. LionO 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But, the POV tag was added by Smedley. We need to see what the concerns are. Sandy 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think at this time it is best to wait for Stephenzhu and Smedley to weigh in before we comment further. --Ideogram 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't. It was added by user K13060 as far as I can tell. [16]. Why do you think it was Smedley? Is Smedley the same person as K13060? LionO 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not K13060, but I did add the tag. Smedley Hirkum 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A clarification: we are talking about different things. Sandy and I are referring to the NPOV tag, while I think you're referring to the contradiction tag. Smedley Hirkum 02:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My error - I was looking at the DLC conflict tag. Please ignore my comment. I am still remain fine with the article in its current content.LionO 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not the same as K13060. As for the NPOV tag, the situation is much better than it was before during the numerous revert wars. Through these wars I think we have improved the article. I think the tag can now be removed, but I think in order to best serve the readers, we should add a "criticism" section to make it clearer why he is in such a closely contested primary. I feel quite strongly that this will improve the article. This would be a neutral section--we would have responses by Lieberman as well as criticism. I also have other suggestions which I will list below. Smedley Hirkum 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that a criticism section would be redundant of what's described on the Connecticut U.S. Senate election, 2006 page, which already discusses criticism. A link from the Lieberman page to that page already exists. LionO 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I don't object to a criticism section, as long as all comments are properly sourced, and rebutted if/when required (and it should always be clear who is making the criticism, avoiding vague generalizations). But, if there is already criticism elsewhere, it can really get messy. Perhaps that can be solved by putting only enduring criticism of Lieberman on his personal page, while other issues that might not outlive the election can be put on that page? Just an idea -- not tied to it ... Sandy 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think its opening a can of worms. Currently, within each section, there is positive and negative material. I think the criticism should remain on the 2006 campaign page. No need to rehash it here. Any criticism of Lieberman is currently being brought up in the current campaign. LionO 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think that Lieberman's page has to outlive the election. Sandy 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No question there. Which is why I am fine with it in its current state: the criticism, without being exaggerated is alluded to throughout the article. LionO 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

Yipes - there was so much vandalism today, and with all the copy and paste reverts, I bet people delted it and then it wound up back in! LionO 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to go through and fix things. The health care section has a lot of it. Smedley Hirkum 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Don't worry, if he continues he will shortly be blocked. --Ideogram 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh, I read it backwards. Bezalela was reverting vandalism that was left over. I've apologized on Bezalela's talk page, but hope s/he sees it. Sheesh. Sandy 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Phew! The vandals were crazy today - really your mistake is another one to blame on them - it's hard to keep things straight. LionO 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section straw poll

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

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

  1. I think the article reads best with just the facts - let the reader make up his or her mind. I also think that the criticism section would lead to overemphasizing things. I could see a separate page - once again, thoroughly referenced, with clear guidelines BEFORE the separate page is created as to who levels the criticism, rebuttal and no vague generalizations. See the Hillary Clinton page. It provides a link to the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page which lists criticism, but a criticism section does not appear on the main page, only the separate page. I would also want a distinction made between what goes on the Joe Lieberman controversies page and what goes on the 2006 CT Senate Election page, which right now is very pro-Lamont and serves as a Joe Lieberman criticism page. LionO 02:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this: We leave this article as it is, and add a criticism section which directs to a separate article about criticism, a la the Hillary article. This way, people will get a general impression of Joe by reading the article, but if they want more detail about why he's in such hot water they can read the separate criticism article. Smedley Hirkum 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with making a separate page. However, before such a page is made, I think clear guidelines should be established as to what is an acceptable source, what acceptable emphasis is, who levels criticism and how rebuttal will work. I also think that the [Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign, 2006] race page should be looked at which currently emphasizes criticism towards Lieberman with little to no rebuttal. I would want clear understanding of how this page would be different, and if it wouldn't be, then perhaps the [Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign, 2006] page should be looked at, too. LionO 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am ok with a first draft going up here before it goes "live." I think that at the root of this debate is what the 2006 Connecticut U.S. Senate Campaign is for. Currently, it is very pro-Lamont and anti-Lieberman. LionO 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should bring discussion of that page in here. You might want to post a notice there asking people to join us. What is the link? --Ideogram 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I see a problem already, that I've had with other articles. We're now talking about 3 different pages: Lieberman, Criticism, and Election. It becomes an enormous task to keep up with all three. I'd feel better about criticism in one place or the other, but not a third article. I've been down that road before. Sandy 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think LionO was suggesting putting the criticism on the Election page. --Ideogram 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

Concur Sandy
I think the criticism already appears on the page. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are instances where there is perceived criticism- such as, "in a controversial move" or "he was widely criticized"-- we should move those to the criticism section along with responses. However, if there are damaging facts like Lieberman voting for Jesse Helms' bill, those should not be moved, but should also be elaborated upon in the criticism section. I think this is fair, no? Smedley Hirkum 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Concur Sandy 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Endorsements, ad material and timeline should be moved to the 2006 page. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2006 Senate race and endorsements should stay in the article, in a short summary-like section linking off to the 2006 Senate election article. Eventually the election article may itself have to split into separate articles, but I don't think there should be a separate article just for endorsements. Phr (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Concur In general, your suggestions go to making this a more enduring article about Lieberman himself, rather than the current election. Sandy 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree - though Lamont's endorsements should be removed also and moved to the 2006 CT Senate page. I DO, however, think that endorsements can go in the positions sections if they are endorsements by major groups pertaining to the position. For example, an endorsement from the HRC helps clarify where Lieberman's positions are on gay right's. An endorsement from Naral and Planned Parenthood, but not NOW, clarifies on how he is perceived on abortion. LionO 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Smedley Hirkum 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I actually don't think we've narrowed it down to one issue. Stephenzhu has not arrived and I know he objects to the article in its current form. I also want mediation on the issue that we should all assume good faith of each other; I feel attacked on the talk page, frankly. LionO 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant for the moment, leaving out Stephenzhu. When he returns we can address his issues. We absolutely must all assume good faith; so far this discussion seems to be going well, if anyone fails to assume good faith, including Stephenzhu when he returns, I will warn them. --Ideogram 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. LionO 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements

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

Please put it back. We did not agree on this. LionO 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought we did agree. If you see above, I agreed with your statement about endorsements. If you still want me to revert, perhaps we can discuss. (It's just a lot of work to delete the article if we can solve our disagreements through discussion.) Smedley Hirkum 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the page already - no need. I think that the endorsements - both Lieberman and Lamont endorsements should be removed and put not on a separate page, but the 2006 Connecticut U.S. Senate Page. I also think that not just endorsements should be removed, but discussions about ads and Lamont's positions. The Lieberman page needs only one short paragraph on the 2006 Campaign and then it should link to that page. HOWEVER, before this is done, the 2006 Campaign page needs to be looked at. Right now it is very pro-Lamont. LionO 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I was confused as well, because I thought we had agreed. But I see what Lion is saying. Everything should be consolidated on the Elections page, as that is a logical place for all of it. This page should be mostly about Lieberman (in general), with all election-specific info consolidated and balanced on elections page. Sandy 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. Sorry if I was confusing -- it's late. My apologies. LionO 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point of view, but I think that these lists of endorsements are so long that they should have their own pages which could be accessed through the 2006 elections page and through the lieberman page. Smedley Hirkum 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
ah, Ok ... I'm neutral, then, as to where it ends up, and will leave that to all of you. I can see the advantages and disadvantages either way. Perhaps if it's on its own page, it will be useful in general elections? (Smedley, if we do end up not needing your new page, it's really easy to speedy delete an article if you're the author -- you just put a speedy tag on it as the author.) Sandy 03:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
seems to me that the list is over long (containing too many caveats) and should be moved to primary page. --Stephenzhu 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am bothered especially by the people section, saying should a Paris Hilton endorsement be included? or the other little know NJ/IL senator? --Stephenzhu 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean here about Paris Hilton? Also, senators should definitely be included, regardless of whether they are known or little known. (The IL senator, Obama, is very well known.) Smedley Hirkum 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Footnotes - Stephenzhu

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

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

Gay rights section

The current section is as follows.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I'm sorry. Given how easily you are using talk pages and updated the main page (nearly 50 updates today - mostly controversial!) I can't believe that you think it's in good form to ignore what's going on in the talk pages, ignore Ideogram's generous help as unofficial mediator and ignore our discussions trying to achieve consensus and just do what you want to do. Please - somebody tell me where to post to request mediation! Stephenzhu - do not make controversial edits (see what Ideogram says above)until this has been hashed out. We are doing one issue at a time. Cut it out! LionO 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you call them controversial. Please be specific --Stephenzhu 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Senate Tenure

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

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

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

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

Lieberman currently is a member of the Armed Services Committee, Environment Committee, Government Affairs Committee and Small Business Committee.[17] --Stephenzhu 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

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

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

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

STEPHENZHU, STOP!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember there is still no mediation request filed, and Ideogram was just trying to help. If Stephenzhu is going to ignore mediation, it won't help. Smedley, are you in agreement with the massive changes made? Sandy 23:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Stephenzhu's revisions have been mostly good, but I do have a couple of problems. I'll list them below. 68.161.42.49 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (This was made by me, User:Smedley Hirkum)


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


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


I am willing to ask Ideograph to check on every addition I made on this page. Since the mediation (unofficial) began, I have not deleted material without absolutely sure of inaccuracy. --Stephenzhu 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct. It is. My error. I copied and pasted the wrong link. Having said that, you must provide the same for domestic parter benefits. Other sources have been deleted - they add nothing. I also am adding that he voted with 29 other Dems for the bill. As well as including htat he voted with 11 other Dems for the amendment. This is what was said in my post before you decided to delete it. NO MORE POSTS UNTIL IDEOGRAM ARRIVES!!!! LionO 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
the bill is a school bill, has little to do GL issue. I am talking about the amendment here. Focusing on the issue. --Stephenzhu 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Stephenzhu's corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

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

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

In general, I think Stephen should read what Ideogram wrote above, for example, Please do not make controversial edits during this discussion, edit-warring is not productive. The "I don't know what mediation is" statement doesn't register with me, considering the long talk page entries here. Sandy 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephen made a WHOLE LOT of controversial edits. I hate to do it, but I am going to revert to where the page was before Ideogram arrived. I don't buy the "I don't know what mediation is" statement either. I do, however, need to know where to post a mediation request -- I would like to do that, but I can't find the particular spot to post it. Stephen, you must stop making controversial edits. I'm sure you did some good stuff, but until you decide that you want to work with people, we aren't going to get anywhere. LionO 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why they are controversial. I am putting Lieberman's accurate and entire quote with context there and you still call them controversial. You cannot censor materials like this --Stephenzhu 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization. Mostly of my edits are hardly controversial. You have to assume good faith, remember. --Stephenzhu 04:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More to add to my complaint

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

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

That's not how it works. If you wish to ADD something - you DISCUSS it first -- we come to a consensus, and then it goes up. You don't put something up and then say "huh? but I proved it!" That's not how it works, especially while we are under unofficial mediation (and hopefully soon official). You must wait. Cut it out.
Regarding the HIV imigrant/Domestic Partnership issue - your sources - the articles - do not give voting record, when the vote took place, nor the context. The senate page that you have linked to is not for this particular bill and does not give the correct informationLionO 04:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


there is your charge again. Check the citation, I put up the voting record for HIV one already. I cannot find the DP one but that cannot be used against me since Advocate already said so. --Stephenzhu 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The senate page is not for the HIV bill. Check again. Since the advocate does not give voting record or even the year that it took place or the context of the bill, it cannot be used. You must achieve consensus. Wait for mediation. Cut it out!
I argue it is. Please check again. --Stephenzhu 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't demand an apology on this. But I think an apology will be nice on the HIV immigrant issue. --Stephenzhu 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Manson, not the charlie one

currently the entertainment industry section has

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

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

Then, since it is a quote and not a description (as is the case with FEPA) use the source as a footnote here. LionO 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, The PBS info has not been discussed on this page - wait for Ideogram and we can discuss it. I am not saying that it doesn't belong, but I want the time to study it before it gets posted. It is not fair to post without consensus. LionO 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

don't know how to add the footnote. Be my guest and feel free to add it. PBS is non-controversial. --Stephenzhu 05:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

misc, facts or controversial.

here is the misc section

Misc

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish). [18][19] He voted for United States to pay arrears to United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [20]

These materials are neutral at best, please pinpoint that why they are controversial. --Stephenzhu 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are finally posting suggestions here for discussion. We have a lot to discuss. I suggest that we follow Ideogram's advice:

1) No controversial posting at this time 2) Deal with one controversial issue at a time

I suggest we first start with the gay right's issue. Then move to smeadly's suggestion of a criticism page. From there we can discuss other sections. Let's move one by one and NOT POST EDITS until we have reached consensus on those pages LionO 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what specific issue you have with my edit? --Stephenzhu 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be edits plural -- right? Stephenzhu, it is late - can we agree, now that official mediation has been requested, to leave the page as is until our mediator arrives? LionO 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry, didn't see your truce offer. I am all for it if you leave the Helmes alone. --Stephenzhu 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
was that your message, didn't sign, don't know who that is. --Stephenzhu 05:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You should have no objection to the Helms section - it contains everything that you want. Please leave it alone. I am not trying to delete it, but I want it written fairly with appropraite sources. Since I was the one who requested help, and Ideogram arrived, it should be my edit - frankly, a consensus edit - that remains until mediation arrives. Wait for mediation. LionO 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
even though I do have objection on the helms section (not enough context, not balanced) let's compromise, give or take. I am all good if you leave the Helms alone. Others you can take. --Stephenzhu 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
fogot to mention. I won't move if you don't change the contents. --Stephenzhu 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Um that's for the mediator to decide. Not you. LionO 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I want mediation. Remember, I originally did not think the Helms section belonged. I compromised and came up with the compromise version. You have not compromised at all. The compromise version should remain until mediation. Who knows! Maybe you will win! Beforewarned: know that an outcome of mediation has been to bad one or both parties who engage in edit wars. The compromise write-up should remain until the mediator arrives. LionO 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made a good faith offer to stop the editor war. You rejected so I have no choice but to revert the section to a more balanced version. You may find it controversial but you have failed to provide reason that it doesn't belong there. --Stephenzhu 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No you have not made good faith. You made 50+ edits today while last night four editors were having a wonderful discussion trying to reach consensus. I even said that we should wait for you to arrive before making a decision. Instead, in spite of Ideogram saying that controversial edits should wait, you made plenty. Unacceptable. Leave the page the way it was when ideogram arrived. You achieved NO CONSENSUS on any of your edits. Wait for mediation LionO 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
look at the contents, not the action. Are those contents made in good faith? Please be specific on a bad faith example. --Stephenzhu 05:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

name calling and personal attack.

LionO agained mounted a personal attack on me.

05:32, 4 August 2006 LionO (Talk | contribs) (liar - you reverted the entire page. it wasn't just helmes. WAIT FOR MEDIATION!

--Stephenzhu 05:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait for mediation. LionO 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep a positive attitude here! --Smedley Hirkum 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Hard to do, but you are right! LionO 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
hard to be up when I am being called a "liar". need some X. --Stephenzhu 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation. I think we may have to wait a day or so to have our problems addressed, but here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04_Joe_Lieberman

I hope that we'll all stay civil and work with the mediator. We're all trying to accomplish the same thing: making this article better. All we're disagreeing upon is how to go about doing that.

Here's the link to the Mediation cabal for future reference: Mediation Cabal. This is just the general page. Our personal link is above. You might wanna poke around there to get a feeling of what this process is about.

--Smedley Hirkum 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Smedley, thank you - you have been very helpful. I think things have gone quite uncivil. I wish Stephen would agree to no major edits until mediation arrives, but that doesn't seem to be the case. LionO 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks. can we add contents to the mediation page? didn't find the specific policy --Stephenzhu 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You cannot add contents to the article in question while you are waiting for mediation. We need a mediator to help us. LionO 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
that is a bummer. Since some of the requested info is dated. e.g. LionO is now OK with HIV immigrant but not DC DP issue. --Stephenzhu 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's ok. See below--I'm adding an NPOV tag to the section so that people know there are problems with it. --Smedley Hirkum 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lion, while you're waiting for a mediator to take the case, you can add comments to the talk page of the actual mediation. Sandy 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Smedley, I see there was a lot of edit warring over night. Is there anything you and I can work on here on the talk page until the page is unprotected? Sandy 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the mediator arrives

And in order to stop your bickering, I will add an NPOV tag over the Helms section. This means that, whatever version is there, the reader will be aware that there is some dispute over the POV of that section. Let's not fight over this. I'm adding the NPOV tag to that section and let's not touch it until the mediator helps us work things out. That means all of us. Think about it: how many people are going to read the Helms section before the mediator arrives? Two? Three? It's not worth this fighting. --Smedley Hirkum 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this BUT Stephenzhu is changing the whole page back to the edits he did today while Ideogram was working with us. We are talking near 50 edits, many of which are controversial. I reverted the page back to what it was when Ideogram was working with us, but Stephenzhu refuses to allow this. He even removes the NPOV tag above his own work LionO 05:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry didn't see you there, I will revert it back.
Thanks, Stephen. --Smedley Hirkum 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I took care of it. And I reinserted smedley's tag which stephen deleted. Glad that we have agreed to wait until mediation LionO 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I put the npov tag in the entire gay rights section, which I think more appropriate. sorry about the confusion. --Stephenzhu 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Looks like this may turn out quite well. As for me, I'm going to sleep. --Smedley Hirkum 05:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
what happens to the npov tag in the front though. who removed it? --Stephenzhu 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't touch it so Smedley, please put the tag back in. --Stephenzhu 05:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
UGH - Stephen - YOU are the one who is removing it every time you decide that you want to copy and paste all your edits onto the page. That wasn't part of the agreement! STOP! Smedley inserted all appropriate tags on the page as it was when Ideogram arrived. Your edits since then should not go up. They will be part of the mediation LionO 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa! Let's all keep a cool head here. Let me look at it.Smedley Hirkum 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)



since I won't touch it for now, I will give Smedley a few minutes to put the tag back in to the proper tag-less version. --Stephenzhu 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
STEPHEN, LOOK AT THE ARTICLE. It is there. It only disappears when you try to reinsert your personal edits. The tag is there. No need to touch anything! The tag is there in the gay right's section where it should be. LionO 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I told you I won't touch it for now. but you are making things worse by putting a very old version which is not even corrently format version up there. --Stephenzhu 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No Stephen, that's the version as it is minus the edits you did today that need to be mediated. I am not making it worse. Once you heard about mediation being filed, you reverted it to all the edits you did today. You keep reverting to a version without tags, but WITH 50 some edits you did today, without discussing with anyone. Glad you are not going to touch it again, though I'm not sure why you continued to revert to that version several times, even after Smedly posted the tag and you agreed not to.LionO 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
LionO, I suggest that we leave the article as Stephen last left it. He may have done controversial work, but I looked through his edits and I believe most of the work actually was just article maintenance that did not affect content. Also, I'm trying to get us to stop arguing. We can read through the article with the mediator and bring up any problems we might have with Stephen's version. Also, with the NPOV tags there, everyone reading will take this article with a grain of salt anyway, so we shouldn't fight so much about how the article will appear before the mediator arrives. Do you disagree with this? Smedley Hirkum 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What I'm really trying to say here is that it doesn't matter what the article looks like before the mediator arrives. We should waste time arguing over this. --Smedley Hirkum 06:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's out of your hands. Because of massive revert warring, I've protected this article (with whatever version was in front of me, I don't much care about this subject). Please resolve your differences instead of revert warring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great -- thank you. Much appreciated. I look forward with discussing each section individually and coming to agreement that falls within Wiki policy. Many thanks LionO 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, you should probably both read up on the three-revert rule; having scores and scores of reverts in succession like this is really disruptive, as I stated on your respective talk pages several minutes ago. I brought AMIB in because I saw how out-of-control this was, but in the future, you should try to resolve edit wars the easy way: Just leave the page be while waiting for a mediator. --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To check

An edit in the midst of the editwarring that should be checked: [21] Sandy 12:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, if you need an edit on a protected page, use {{editprotected}} on its talk page with a section describing what needs editing. I've looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=67471401&oldid=67470435 and it appears correct, at least according to the citations, Lieberman does support stem cell research according to his voting record and that cite. What is the issue? -- Avi 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Avi. I don't know Lieberman's record, so I wasn't sure if there was an issue. I was just trying to see if anyone else's edits got mixed up in the edit war. Thanks for checking, Sandy 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

{editprotected} Can we eliminate this typo in the lead? It's unsightly to have a typo in the lead, particularly just before an election. (double brackets at the end of the reference).

He also received a lifetime rating of 17% from the American Conservative Union.[4]]

TIA, Sandy 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the typo.--Commander Keane 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Lieberman's Political Record

This is the deleted sections.

Gay Rights

In August, 1994, Jesse Helms (R-SC) and Bob Smith (R- NH) proposed an amendment, S.AMDT.2434, to Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA) – S.1513 – that would prevent federal funding for schools that "implement or carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle." This amendment would cut off funding for schools that teach tolerance of homosexuality or provide gay-sensitive counseling.[22][23][24] Lieberman voted for the amendment, saying "society should not be promoting the homosexual lifestyle".[25][26] 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.[27][28][29][30]

This should absolutely be included in the main article. The fact that this is not included goes to show that this article is biased. Agrippina Minor

Entertainment Industry

In a PBS interview about Lieberman's battle over Hollywood's racier material, Lieberman accuse the "Hollywood is still giving us the same violent content, is still going great guns to mass-market murder."[31] In 1995, Lieberman joined William Bennett and others to get Time Warner to drop a "gangsta rap" record label.[32][33]

In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest ever promoted by a mainstream record company". As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board.

copy edit - first WP:MOS calls for capitalization of the first word only in a heading. I have repeatedly had to change this in this article. It should be Gay rights and Entertainment industry
In a PBS interview about Lieberman's battle over Hollywood's racier material, Lieberman accuse said the that, "Hollywood is still giving us the same violent content, is still going great guns to mass-market murder."[34] In 1995, Lieberman joined William Bennett and others to get Time Warner to drop a "gangsta rap" record label.[35][36]
(don't say "and others" unless you can tell us who the "others" are.)
In the late 1990s, Lieberman was vocal in lobbying lobbied for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest ever promoted by a mainstream record company". As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board.[citation needed]
I don't know what "inspired the advent of" means, but would need to see the reference for wording.

Misc

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish). [37][38] He voted for United States to pay arrears to United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [39]

Lieberman opposed Clinton's clemency to 12 members of a Puerto Rican independence group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN, in Spanish).[40][41] He voted for the United States to pay arrears to the United Nations without setting conditions in law and he backs Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [42]
Are you serious that the references or Clinton called the FALN an "independence group?" Sounds POV to me, but I haven't checked the reference.
I don't know what "without setting conditions in law" means.
I don't know how the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty fits into that sentence. Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If he won the vice presidency, he would have to resigned his Senate seat. Since the Republican Connecticut governor would presumably appoint a Republican senator, causing a possible 51-49 split in the senate in favor of the Republicans or a 50-50 split (as it turned out) by the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Dick Cheney. While considered quite controversial, he did win the Senate re-election easily. [43][44]

If he won the vice presidency, he would have had to resigned his Senate seat. Since the Republican Connecticut governor would presumably have appointed a Republican senator, causing a possible 51-49 split in the senate in favor of the Republicans or a 50-50 split (as it turned out) by the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Dick Cheney. (that is not a complete sentencew, so I don't know what it says.) While considered quite controversial, he did win the Senate re-election easily. [45][46]
What is considered quite controversial ??? Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


feel free to criticize. --Stephenzhu 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to read back through hundreds of edit reverts: can you possibly 1) copy edit that content and reference it, and 2) give us under your proposal what LionO's proposal is? That would help us advance things along here. Sandy 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
not sure got what you mean, the latest version I've done is [47]. I put all the reference there. LionO's proposal is the current version, which is mostly a version with reduced length. --Stephenzhu 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll put my suggested copyedits above, and then bring over LionO's version for comparison: I honestly don't know the two different versions, what with all the edit warring. Sandy 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I added copy edit suggestions and questions above -- maybe you can modify your text here, so it will be ready when protection is lifted. Now, can someone put LionO's proposed text under it, for comparison? Sandy 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
the entertainment board ref is [48]. The problem is that LionO consider everything controversial and want all kind of refs. He never checked the materials he himeself put on the page which is favorable to liberman using the same standard. I already asked him numerous times which are controversial and he has refused to answer it. --Stephenzhu 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In this specific case (I haven't seen the others), LionO is 100% correct. Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki, and not a reliable source. It merely reflects what someone added to Wiki at some point, when answers.com took a picture of it. You've got to stick with WP:RS. That's why I keep running through the refs, since this is BLP. When I checked before your edit spree, all of the sources were reliable. If this is what LionO is objecting to, he's correct. Sandy 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Nothing is controversial, what was in there was a conensus version chosen to appease LionD. Time to tell LinoD to go to fucking hell. Blah42 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

reverted vandalism

Stephenzhu, regarding the question you left on my talk page, please see: User talk:83.52.119.23 and User talk:83.52.113.169. Sandy 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

got it. didn't know the history. --Stephenzhu 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request declined

Stephenzhu, since your request was QUICKLY denied, I am deleting your paragraph here, per WP:BLP, as explained on the mediation case. You cannot make unfounded damaging allegations about a living person, and they can be deleted from talk pages. I also fail to see any evidence. Sandy 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean unfounded allegation? my allegation is founded and has probable cause and reasonable suspcion. --129.10.56.164 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the unclear terminology: I meant no proof or reliable source, as in WP:BLP. I didn't mean to overstate the case: just chose the wrong word. Sandy
I checked WP:BLP which has no specific policy on deleting my request page. How quickly the request is denied has no importance here (that should be considered a random event). I request a revert. LionO does not even care since he already achieved his purpose (with no mediated showing up in nearly 24 hours) and the primary is 3 days away. --Stephenzhu 04:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not following you: no one deleted your request. LionO may not care, but I do, if talk pages violate WP:BLP by putting out claims that could negatively affect living persons. BLP says to delete them if they aren't referenced. It's still on the mediation and on the request check, just not on Lieberman's page. LionO did not achieve the page protection: you both did. You both violated the 3RR rule, more than once, and you both could have been blocked from editing, so it's best not to complain about the status. Sandy 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
someone deleted my LionO? liberman staffer para. that should be reverted. --Stephenzhu 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
how does questioning if one is a lieberman staff damaging. a staffer is not something people are ashamed of, by all means. --Stephenzhu 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
look, nobody is going to care about the page after the primary (if lieberman wins), if lieberman lose, this page will be lively until nov. --Stephenzhu 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
finally, I won't touch the talk/mediation page anymore. this wiki has failed to achieve its purpose. LionO won by his tenaciy, as always. I lost. -Stephenzhu 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The page was protected because BOTH of you engaged in edit warring. The page was not blocked because of the mediation. This page will exist on Wiki forever: Lieberman is an important political figure regardless of the outcome of this election. You cannot make claims without reliable sources that could negatively affect him in his article or on talk pages. Sandy 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sandy is correct; both of you engaged in egregious edit warring (far, far, far beyond what is permitted), and neither of you thus has any claim to a preferential version of this article. If you're only editing this page in an attempt to help or hurt Lieberman politically, then...Well, like AMIB, I frankly don't much care one way or the other about which version stands in the meantime. If you see this page as an electoral matter for you to influence, then I'm afraid you're editing for all the wrong reasons. --Emufarmers(T/C) 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've thought on this overnight, and want to add on to Emufarmers' comments. Stephenzhu, you claim no political interest in this article, but you come across as notably upset by LionO's version, so there's a contradiction there.

I also think it was unfair of me to blame you and LionO equally for the page protection. Smedley, LionO and I all entered into a consensual process, which you refused to respect. You appear to be maintaining that position, with your statements above. I believe LionO was justifiably unhinged by your insertion of hundreds of edits while refusing to discuss them on the talk page or in the mediation. Now that I've seen you are not using reliable sources, and not apparently understanding the strong need for reliable sources in biographies of living persons, I further understand LionO's upset.

Let me ask you something: If you say that "Lieberman's critics assert..." is it not fair then to use a site critical of Lieberman as a source? And if something is factual, but a site reports it because of its opposition to Lieberman, why does that need to be removed?-KP 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The admins reviewing this case were very generous in not blocking you both from editing. The question now is, when Protection is removed, do you see the need for reaching consensus so as not to harm Wiki? If you don't, I support the admins leaving this page protected as long as necessary. Like them, I don't care which version is up, because I have yet to understand the content dispute. I also don't think people come to Wikipedia to decide for whom to vote; if that is your reason for editing, you should get a blog.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: entries here need to endure. When dealing with a BLP, high standards must be in place. My role here (and on Lamont, as well) was to periodically review the sources and make sure they were reliable. Have you thoroughly read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:3RR? Please understand that violations of BLP are not subject to 3RR. Criticism about a living person can be deleted as often as it is inserted if it doesn't have a reliable source. That means, blogs, answers.com, etc. You need to source criticism to, for example, NY Times, Hartford Courant, .gov sites, Washington Post, New Haven Register, etc. Not blogs, not partisan or personal websites. I won't engage in edit warring if you insert information based on sources that are not reliable: I will ask admins to review your contributions if you don't come to consensus, mediate in good faith, and respect the consensual process that Smedley, LionO and I started.

Like the admins, I don't really care which version of this page is up; I'm concerned that good faith editing will resume once the page is unprotected. Can you give us your thoughts, Stephenzhu? If you agree to work towards consensus, perhaps the admins will lift the protection. With hindsight, it appears to me that as soon as we dealt with the vandals via semi-protection, you assumed ownership of the article, making whatever edits you wanted, while the rest of us were working towards consensus.

Sandy 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I agree that LionO is not a reasonable person. He removed a conensus version of Lieberman running for the VP and Senate at the same time that was specifically chosen to appease him. We shouldn't let one person be the Lieberman wiki page dictator. Blah42 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to come from out of my "Wikipedia retirement home" to also add that I also found that LionO is not a reasonable person. He's the kind of highly biased editor that leaves Wikipedia open to charges that anyone can "create" truth. I left because of his actions and that at least one Wikipedian largely defended him. If his actions are acceptable, Wikipedia is as unreliable as its critics say.
Two key pieces of evidence as to this are (if this is even still possible to find) if you look at his first version of the changes to the article that he made. That version looked like it had been created by Lieberman's press secretary. No matter how well-sourced, anything that was at all critical of Lieberman he removed (some stuff, not added by me, was not sourced; and had he removed only that, it wouldn't have bothered me. Had he added some sourced pro-Lieberman material, but left the sourced negative info, I'd even agree that it was called for).
He doesn't compromise to look for accuracy; he gives only as much in compromise as he feels he has to. Secondly, his account is a "single purpose account." I don't think he's edited a single non-Lieberman related article.
I have my own biases, wanting to see Lieberman lose. And yes, probably most editing this article a lot now have a view on the election (and thus a bias). A big difference, at least with me and I think with the others who have warred with LionO, is that my concern was that the article not favor Lieberman. LionO doesn't just want to make sure it's not unfair to Lieberman, but wants it to favor him as much as possible-- and LionO does act like he owns the page.
As to the charge of LionO being on Lieberman's staff, I have no idea whether he is or not; but especially when I listed exactly where I was coming from and my biases and challenged him to do the same (which he refused), I have the feeling that whatever the truth is about him would hurt his credibility-- although, to his credit, he could just have lied and he didn't do that, either.-KP 21:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Weicker

Weicker was a liberal Republican. He was RINO before RINO was uncool. He was not a moderate.--69.177.44.183 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Work which can be done while page is protected

Considering discussions above of WP:RS and WP:BLP, one thing that can be done while the page is protected is to go through every reference cited to make sure BLP is respected and the sources say what they purport to say. LionO, are you still here? Sandy 17:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LinonD

The Lieberman running for VP and Senate at the same time section was specifically chosen to appease you, there are many more things that could have gone there, but they were neutered into a much more lame version to appease you, oh Lieberman wiki page dictator. Yet, you still took this version out. You do not negotiate in good faith, and should not have ultimate authority over what goes into this page. I could revert, but knowing you, you'll threaten to have me banned for reverting your dumbass 3 times. Thanks for making this primary so personal, now I'm really hoping that your campaign loses. Blah42 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman mediation

Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this case. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman. I suggest that interested parties use the discussion page there to hammer out a resolution. In sum, my suggestions are:

  • A rigorous level of citation in this article.
  • The hammering out of contentious issues, including the wording of particular sections or paragraphs, on the talk page.
  • Balancing viewpoints on votes and other issues in the article, using WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as guidelines.
  • Editors refrain from focussing on the identity of users (unless there are obvious sockpuppetry allegations) and focus instead on content.
  • That material relevant to the 2006 election campaign be included here, in keeping with the precedent of articles on other senatorial candidates. Fishhead64 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fishhead64 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lift of protection

I'm in no way part of the ongoing disputes that embroil this page. This page will most likely see a lot of traffic soon, so it should be cleaned up. His full name needs to be added, and the links should probably use the new standard, <ref> tags. --MZMcBride 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If edit protection is lifted, semi-protection may still be needed. Even before the dispute between LionO and Stephenzhu, the article was getting slammed by vandalism and was semi-protected. There is still so much active work on the article, that I have hesitated to update to cite:php with ref tags. I would like to do it when things settle down. What is the exact full name that needs to be added, so an admin can do it while under edit protection? Sandy 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

His full name is Joseph Isadore "Joe" Lieberman. --MZMcBride 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone says his birth year is wrong? Talk:Joe Lieberman#Year of Birth. Sandy 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LionO and Stephenzhu haven't edited in the past couple days. Should we request backing off to semi-protection at WP:RFPP and see what happens? I think total unprotection before Wednesday (or maybe even before the end of the week) or so would invite another vandal-fest. Phr (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that (backing off to semi-protection) but don't have time to request it. The problem is, the article may get a flurry of activity, and someone will need to monitor for vandalism and BLP – I'm not sure I have time this week. It troubles me that neither of them has responded to the mediation, or attempted to resolve any of the pending issues above. That would seem to provide a basis for blocking them if they again engage in edit warring. Do you have time to post the request?Sandy 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you mean me.... I don't have time to list them for blocking. It seems a like a reasonable solution is that if the page were unlocked and only these two specific users were in an edit war, that they could be blocked from editing this page. I'm going to list this page for unprotection. --MZMcBride 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN report

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/07/connecticutsenate.ap/index.html Sandy 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sore Loserman

Looks like Leiberman is on his way out. Ha Ha Ha! Good riddance, DINO!

Year of Birth

Not sure if this has been addressed but someone changed Lieberman's birth year to 1922. I think this is a case for unprotection to correct the year back to 1942.--RexRex84 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Phr (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Reproductive Rights

This appears in Lieberman's biography:

In March 2006, according to the The New Haven Register, when asked about the approach of the Catholic hospitals on contraceptives for rape victims, Lieberman said he believes Catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.[69]

I suggest this be deleted or rewritten and moved to the election section. It is absurd and disproportionate to include in the story of Lieberman's life; the bills were in the CT state legislature, not Congress, and he had no vote. Two proposals on this matter were discussed in two committees and died. One state legislator, a Lamont supporter BTW, described the bill as a violation of (Catholic) religious freedom. If wiki wants a full blown discussion of the bills and their flaws so be it, but this entry is political and biased, and misrepresents the policy implications of actual proposed legislation. Lieberman's throwaway quote, which was certainly very insensitive to victims, still does not belong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annaliviaplurabelle (talk • contribs).

The quote absolutely does belong in his biography, since 1) it expresses a distinctive viewpoint that differentiates Lieberman from most other politicians; and 2) it outraged a lot of people and may have been the last straw that finishes off his Senate career. Right now it's in the section about reproductive rights, which I think is where it belongs, but it's very significant to the 2006 campaign and probably rates a mention there too. I'm not sure what point is being made about Greenwich Hospital, but if it can be explained more clearly and cited, then it might be suitable for adding to the article. Phr (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I changed that, too much information. I never edited before so I don't know what I'm doing really. But - Your distinctive viewpoint argument is debatable since bills proposed in two different committees failed. And it may be that exit polls will show that that remark hurt him, but so far you don't know that, and the polls show that overwhelmingly the war is the issue. Certainly the remark was stupid, insensitive, and uncharacterisitcally rash, and his critics did seize on it. Suggested language:

In 2006, a controversy erupted in the Connecticut state legislature when the Hartford Archdiocese, in response to legislation mandating that hospitals provide contraceptives to rape victims on request, forbade Catholic hospitals from dispensing the medication. One proposal, that would have denied energy funds to those hospitals, which are all in poor cities, drew strong criticism from legislators and failed in the Appropriations Committee. Lieberman, who had no vote in the matter, sided with the archdiocese and said he believes Catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.[69]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annaliviaplurabelle (talk • contribs).

The background about the legislative bill is worthwhile; I'd say the phrasing about the hospitals being in poor cities sounds a little too much like political spin. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean--that it's ok to force pregnancy on poor women even if it's not ok for rich ones? Yes, explaining the political reaction in the 2006 campaign would be worthwhile. I think it was instrumental in several of Lamont's endorsements (like Connecticut's branch of NOW) and it got a lot of people angry at the national NARAL and Planned Parenthood organizations, which supposedly did their endorsements by a formula based purely on legislative votes. Nobody knows what's going to happen in the election (I'd say it's a toss-up), but without those endorsements Lamont could never have had a chance.
Btw, welcome to Wikipedia (I'll leave a welcome template on your user page); be aware that you've started out in one of the more hotly contested areas of the encyclopedia and that other parts are more peaceful; but have fun editing regardless. Please sign your posts with four tilde characters (~~~~), which will show up as your username and a timestamp, like this: Phr (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.I always read, I just have an interest in universal health care and am worried about institutions that serve the poor getting caught up in the politics and was concerned that this issue was highlighted.

There is the politics and the policy. Politics: That remark to me is a bizarre example of a pro choice legislator who was known for being temperate running his mouth when he didn't have to - just like the WSJ remark about undermining the president at your peril. That is a story. He didn't have to stick his nose in it.

But the legislative proposal set aside $$ million for energy costs for hospitals and denied it to hospitals that don't dispense the pill. The policy effect was to deny $$ to some of the poorest hospitals, who serve the poorest and given new $$ to richer hospitals - that is not spin. Even those who agree with the mandate had problems with the way it was done. And totally FUBAR because the Catholic Church doesn't fund any of those hospitals, the bishop was playing to the Vatican. The Catholic hospitals were demonized and caught in the middle. They all dispensed those pills (except in Waterbury) but once the bill was filed they were exposed. FUBAR. annalivia 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)annaliviaplurabelleannalivia 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

a small grammar change

Hello. about the intro, "the first Jew". Uh, can someone please change it to something better? like, "he is the first jewish senator" or something? Saying "jew" just sounds wrong on a encylopedia. dposse 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with saying "Jew"? Joe Lieberman is a Jew. What's the difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" that makes it non-encyclopedic? --Age234 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just not proper grammar. dposse 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly proper grammar. What in the world are you talking about?

Yeah, not sure what dposse is getting at. "Lieberman was the first Jew nominated for Vice President of the United States by a major party." Take out Jew and put in any other noun and it still makes perfect sense.  ??? -Age234 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

editprotected

The link Connecticut U.S. Senate election, 2006 should be changed to Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. 68.39.174.238 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Campaign website down, claimed hacked

Could someone add a note that the campaign website is currently offline, and the Lieberman campaign is claiming it was hacked? [49] - O^O

I just saw this on MSNBC. I agree, it should be added to the article. [50] dposse 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
He's claiming it was hacked. Others are pointing out that the original page that replaced his website suggests it's simply a case of Leiberman's campaign not paying the bills.
And several news agencies have reported it, including MSNBC, Yahoo News, the LA Times, ect. The fact that it is offline on the day of the primary speaks for itself. dposse 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, I'm not claiming to know the truth of the situation. I'm merely pointing out that others have disputed Lieberman's claims on the basis that the page which initially replaced the site suggested it had been shut down because the bills hadn't been paid, which obviously can happen. I just think it's important to make clear that Leiberman is claiming his site had been hacked, not that it is definately a fact that his site has been hacked.

I second that it should be mentioned. I saw it first on FOX news, then visited the website myself. Interestingly, though, the "Under Construction" template on display on FOX News and on the actual website appear to be different.--Zaorish

We're talking about a United States senator, who is fighting for the future of his political career in the 2006 Connecticut Primary. Think about it. Why would senator Joe Lieberman not pay for the website of his campaign? He has plenty of money. This is an obvious hack. dposse 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It could be an oversight by one of his staff. I do think it is most likely a hack, but I don't think that should be asserted as a fact on his Wiki page. At present, these are still claims by Lieberman, even if they seem credible. Better simply to note that Lieberman's site appears likely to have been hacked and that Lieberman himself is claiming that. --195.93.21.37 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The page replacing his site has apparently changed several times. As I pointed out, earlier today there was a page there implying the site had been shut down because of Leiberman's campaign not paying the bills.
Whoever you are, do you have evidence for this? because all media reports that i've seen have said that the website has been hacked. dposse 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's on various liberal webblogs, such as Daily Kos. I'm not saying they are right in asserting that the original template indicated Liberman hadn't paid his bills, I'm just pointing out that commentators are disputing his claims about hacking on that basis. --195.93.21.37 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, Daily Kos is now claiming it's Lieberman's host, not his own website, which is the problem, casting doubt on the hacking claims. He is hosting at a very cheap host called MyHostCamp which is renowned for technical problems. All 72 clients of this host are down, not just Lieberman. It's being pointed out that Lieberman has at present no evidence whatsoever that his site has been hacked and is simply making allegations. --195.93.21.37 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a prominent post on Daily Kos saying that the site host is down, not that the site hosting was not paid for. The cheapskate angle is that he didn't pay for a decent web host. Having said that, another part of the post says that another Lieberman site on the same host is still up. I'm confused, but that may just be my poor grasp of the technicalities of web hosting. HenryFlower 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, obviously you posted this as I was replying above! I don't know about the other Liberman site still being up but it did say that all 72 clients of the host are down. --195.93.21.37 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The Daily Kos doesn't sound like a reliable source. dposse 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that claims on the Daily Kos should put up on the page, I'm just pointing out that there are other explanations for Lieberman's site being down other than the hacking claims made by his campaign. The media are only echoing Liberman's claims. The general consensus appears to be that a combination of cheap hosting and exceeding the bandwith could easily be responsible and nobody will know for certain unless Lieberman allows an investigation. It is apparently easy enough to determine whether he has really been hacked (or if his host has, as would seemingly have to be the case). In the meantime, I'm only suggesting that while I think it's a good idea to mention it on Wikipedia, it should not as yet be stated as fact that Lieberman has been hacked until the truth has been established, simply stating that Lieberman's site is down and his campaign are claiming he's been hacked would be more appropriate. --195.93.21.37 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you'll be happy to know that Lieberman has demanded an investigation from the attorney general, the justice department, ect. [51] I agree that we should include this in wikipedia. However, the daily kos is too POV for wikipedia for any of its claims to be taken seriously. Your proposal is a good idea. dposse 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

State attorney general Richard Blumenthal has now announced that he will investigate the hacking as a violation of state and federal law. [52] Funnyfarmofdoom 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

I'd like to make a minor edit in the succession box. Right now, the link "Fred Thompson" leads to a disambiguation page. I'd like to change the link in the box to "Fred Dalton Thompson|Fred Thompson", who was the U.S. Senator who chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs before Lieberman. Similarly, under 2006 campaign-endorsements-people, "John Lewis" is a disambiguation link. It should be "John Lewis (politician)|John Lewis." However, it may not germane after all this primary election editing war silliness is over. Thanks, --Jim Campbell 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman might be offered Republican ticket

According to [over at the Nation], the Republicans are seriously considering offering Lieberman the Republican ticket in Connecticut should he lose today (as looks likely). Apparantly their candidate is a gambling addict who people already have had serious doubts over, and they could use this as an excuse to have him replaced by Lieberman. All speculation of course, but it does seem as though some senior Republicans are very keen on the idea. Is this worthy of mention? Obviously it shouldn't be implied that it is something that is very likely to happen, but it may be worth mentioning the fact that the Republicans are seriously considering offering Lieberman the chance to be their candidate if he loses today. --195.93.21.37 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman already has a plan in place if he loses the primary, and it isn't the Republicans. dposse 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, but obviously at this stage Lieberman's views on the idea of running as a Republican are unknown. I wasn't suggesting any implication should be made that Lieberman might like to run as a Republican rather than an independent if offered the chance, merely that the fact that the Republicans are seriously considering asking him to might be worthy of mention. --195.93.21.37 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don’t think that “some Connecticut Republicans” are “discussing the prospect” that Lieberman would run as a Republican is credible information that should be cited by an encyclopedia. Who are these Connecticut Republicans? If we’re talking about party bosses and elected officials, okay. But that article could just as easily be referring to a couple stock brokers sitting in a bar. I know the article mentions Jodi Rell, but cites her only as saying that Schlesinger might want to consider dropping out. The article does not state that Rell offered Lieberman or anyone else as an alternative. I think the article could be cited to show DeLay and Coulter have supported Lieberman’s positions. I also think the Lieberman-as-Republican is a story that editors might want to follow to see if more develops. As it stands, however, I don’t think the rumor that Lieberman is being considered by Republicans should be included in an encyclopedia article based solely on very vague statements from a political blog.
Now can someone fix the Fred Thompson link?
--Jim Campbell 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it's stockbrokers in a bar, I would assume it's talking about party officials although I agree it dosen't actually say who. I agree editors like the story probably because the suggestion that Lieberman might turncoat and join the GOP might seem like an attention grabber and possibly plausible because of the perception of him as a DINO. I'm not sure as to whether the stuff about Coulter and DeLay supporting Liberman is that noteworthy, it's interesting I suppose but I would'nt be entirely sure that Lieberman welcomes Coulter's support. --195.93.21.37 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing the amount of speculation on this page, I can only thank the wise admin who didn't lift the page protection during the election. Perhaps some of the conversation could find its way to an internet chat forum instead of an encyclopedia? Sandy 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Lieberman concedes the primary

AP News Alert: [53]. --MZMcBride 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect

{{editprotected}} How do we get this to be unprotected?? This is ridiculous--the biggest story in Lieberman's career just happened and we can't write about it. --Smedley Hirkum 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing that this might happen, I've been trying for the past several days to get protection demoted to semi-protection. No luck yet. The page is already listed on WP:RFPP --MZMcBride 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I will be happy to change things, but I don't wanna mess with this (hot topic). Plus, we should wait until he ACTUALLY files, as he may still get talked out of it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Party status should change

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

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

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

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

Unprotected

Unprotected -- Samir धर्म 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. dposse 04:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/e/Talk%7EJoe_Lieberman_Archive4_e0e9.html"