Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Activepol

Archives
1 2 3 4

Who put that "Bush's Favorite Democrat" thing? I couldn't remove it and there is no evidence that he's Bush's favorite Democrat, now is that an appropriate category to have on here!

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

• http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/iwill.html
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://pac.nisgroup.com/learn/media/violent-video-game-legislation/
• http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=6086997 replaced (see below) Sandy 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/jun00/0526.html
• http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/15/naral-ct-head-backs-ned-lamont/
• http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/post_14.html

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

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

Nevermind, I found it. I will replace the Gamespot link with Reuters/Forbes. --4.253.35.149 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would support moving it somewhere; not needed here. Sandy 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Sure, he lost the primary, but he's still running. The endorsments are still accurate. dposse 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The endorsements aren't even accurate in the first place. Lieberman got the support of all of Connecticut's state legislators? That can't be true. And the cited source doesn't work. --Smedley Hirkum 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: I'd like to see them on the election page, rather than his personal page, to help keep the more static info here, and the dynamic info there. It's too hard to keep up with things in so many places. Sandy 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smedley, let's get a drive for consensus, which we had before the LionO Stephenzhu revert war. All of this election stuff needs to go to the election article. Much of it is poorly sourced and poorly written, yet repeated in the election article, creating double work: we need to get it to one place so it can be cleaned up. Sandy 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we delete our endorsements page (because it's inaccurate) and shorten the election section considerably, linking to the Senate Race article instead.

--Smedley Hirkum 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the archived talk versions, I don't care where it ends up, just that we get all in one place. Right now, the series of articles are a mess, with repeated info, unreferenced info, limited adherence to BLP, need for copy editing. I support any move that gets the election stuff consolidated, for clarity and easy of editing. I keep deleting the same blogs from 3 articles ! Sandy 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose pretty drastic changes, cutting the election portion of the article by, say 60-75%. Should we vote on this or something? --Smedley Hirkum 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of drastic change. The editing chore if we don't consolidate is ridiculous. There is an article for the election, all of the election material should be there. This is one small part of Joe Lieberman's entry, and right now, all of the articles are sloppy. I don't know who will help build consensus. Let's give it some time and see if anyone disagrees? Sandy 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we keep this infomation as it was accurate during the primary? Also, Let's try to find infomation on who is supporting him for the November election before we delete everything. Working togther now will solve problems later. dposse 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read above: I didn't mean we should delete anything, just get all the election info to one place. I wouldn't have a problem with keeping a list of those who endorsed Lieberman in the primary here (since that info isn't needed in the general election article), but think it would be better (now) converted to a simple, prose paragraph. These articles look awful. Sandy 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that with the CT senate race page, not this one. I say we delete this list. --Smedley Hirkum 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favor of drastically cutting down the "Democratic primary" section of the article. --MZMcBride 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the endorsements should have ever been listed so completely on Lieberman's bio. That's something more appropriate for a campaign web site than an encyclopedia article. I can't think of any other bio on wikipedia that lists all the endorsements a person received in a single election, even if that election was a current one. Furthermore, leaving the endorsements on the page could mislead readers since many of those who endorsed Lieberman in the primary have announced they will support Lamont, the Democratic nominee, in the general election. Are the endorsements being moved or deleted?Jim Campbell 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% Jim. I wanted the endorsements gone from the beginning. I say we delete the endorsements and refer people to the CT Sen race article. --Smedley Hirkum 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, based on the consensus here, I've deleted the "endorsements" section. The endorsements were already listed on the page for the election, so I didn't need to add them there. If any editors have a problem with the removal of the endorsements, let them revert now or forever hold their piece.

I have a procedural question. If a consensus has been reached and acted upon, how long does the talk page have to reflect that? Specifically, how long do we wait until deleting this thread from the talk page? --Jim Campbell 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete threads from talk pages: we periodically archive talk pages, when discussions are closed. What's the hurry? Sandy 20:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO hurry, just wondering when that gets done. --Jim Campbell 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, isn't he both? Independent means that he's not running for the Party in this years election, but that doesn't mean that he isn't still a democrat. Why should it be only Independent when he's only being a Independent for this one election? dposse 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by way of example, what if he was "for this one election" running as a Republican? Would we still call him a Democrat? We might say that he was a Democrat, but not that he is one. The template uses both, and I think that makes sense. But he should not be listed unqualfiadly as a Democrat in any general sense, such as had been the case in the opening sentence. Thesmothete 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then not only would he be going against his political beliefs by running as a republican, he would destroy any chance of winning by alienating himself from a completely blue state. It should be listed as both because he is still a democrat, but he's running in this election as a Independent. dposse 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that's missing the point. The point is that to be a Democratic politician, by definition you must support (or at least not oppose, certainly not run against) the Democratic nominee for the office. You can't run in and lose the Democratic primary and then merrily still be a Democratic candidate for office. Otherwise, why would the Democrats have a primary at all? Thesmothete 05:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article 8, section 1 of the Democratic party charter states that the Democratic Party is open to all who desire to support the party and who wish to be known as Democrats. If he decides to run as an Ind, Lieberman is showing he doesn't support the party.--riffic 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, he has not made any indication that he's withdrawing from this Senate race, although I suppose it's a possibility in the future.

Secondly, he did not resign from the Democratic Party.

He has already stated-repeatedly-that if he is re-elected he will caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate.

Simply because he was defeated in this primary, and is not going to be the Democratic nominee in this election, does not mean that he has renounced his ties to the Democratic Party.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole conversation is very confusing: for Wikipedia, his party status changes only when a *very* (WP:BLP) reliable source says it changed. Any other change here is original research. Sandy 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the not-out-of-date source that says he is a Democrat? The default should be that a candidate has NO party affiliation (D) (R) (G) (S) or (I) until it has been established what that candidate's party affiliation is. There is a Democrat running for Senate. It is true, and there are many sources, that he WAS a Democrat. But where is the reliable source that says that he IS? All we know is that he is on the ballot as an independent candidate -- that's been widely reported. Can anyone find a Democratic Party website updated since the election that says he is, currently, a Democrat? Thesmothete 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misuderstanding the issue here.

No one is asserting that Joe Lieberman is the Democratic nominee for this seat-nor asserting that Ned Lamont is not the official Democratic nominee-or that he is not running as an independent candidate, .

Those are indisputable, established facts.

However, the contention that he is no longer a registered Democrat, or that he has abjured any affiliation with the Democratic Party is not a fact.

In fact, there is no tangible evidence supporting this claim.

Perhaps he will leave the Democratic Party in the future, but that is merely speculation and conjecture at this point in time, not factual evidence.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But see riffic's comment, above. Is there no other act, short of their own explicit renunciation, that could make someone not a Democrat? According to the Democrat's own platform, the criterion is support for the Party. He's opposing the Party's nominee; how else would you "not support" the party? It does appear that Lieberman is registered in Connecticut as a Democrat, but is that conclusive evidence of "Democrat"ness? What if he voted for Frist for Majority leader? Still a Democrat then? Perhaps the undisputed facts are that 1) he CLAIMS to be a Democrat, 2) he is REGISTERED as a Democrat, and 3) he filed to run AGAINST the official Democratic Party nominee as an Independent (another form of party registration, I might add...).Thesmothete 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with CT's election laws, so I don't know if placing your name on the ballot as an independent candidate nullifies your enrollment in another political party.

What I do know is that Joe Lieberman has never expressed any desire to leave the Democratic Party, and has reiterated his intention to caucus with the Democrats, should he win re-election as an independent candidate.

The Democratic Party platform in this respect is of dubious value.

There are many Democratic candidates who have broken with the Democratic Party platform, and even voted against Democratic presidential nominees, and yet still remained members of the Democratic Party, even members of the Democratic caucus within Congress.

Gene Taylor voted for each one of the articles of impeachment brought against former President Clinton, and yet he remains a member of the House Democratic minority in good standing.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thesmothete, your argument is original research. He's the Democratic senator from CT, and he's a Democrat on Wiki until a reliable source says otherwise. Sandy 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. It's incontravertible he is not running as part of the Democratic Party, but rather a party he just created called "Connecticut for Lieberman". You don't get to lose a Democratic primary and still run as part of the Democratic party. Isn't the petition for signatures to start a political party "Conneticuts for Lieberman" good enough for WP:BLP? "Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state's office Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman." - AP. He is not running as part of the Democratic party but as of a third-party called "Connecticut for Lieberman. Are you saying he's still a Democrat now but he's not running as a Democratic candidate, because I will agree with that. --kizzle 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Democratic senator" means he's a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, which as far as I know is still true, and it would be huge news if it changed (e.g. Jeffords quit the Republican caucus, and every now and then a Congressmember gets booted out of their caucus, usually the result of a scandal). It doesn't just mean he's registered as a Dem on the CT voter rolls. But if he's reelected as an independent, I think JL will probably still try to stay in the Dem caucus, and IMO he'd be permitted to stay. So, I'd describe him as a Democratic senator running for reelection on an independent ticket after losing his party's primary. Phr (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not running as a member of the Democratic Party, and no one here is asserting otherwise.

That does not negate the fact that he's still a registered Democrat-to the best of my knowledge-or that he intends to caucus with the Democratic Party if he is re-elected on a third party line this November.

As mentioned above, he is also still a member of that caucus for the time being.

That hasn't changed.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "Democrat" is not well-defined. There are, apparently at least three ways a person could be a Democrat. 1) registered to vote in the Democratic primary of their state of residence, 2) a participant in the Democratic Caucus of the body in which they hold office, and 3) The possessor of or opponent of, the Democratic Party endorsement for office. Usually, all are the same. Here they are not. Therefore it is inappropriate to use the word "Democrat" to describe Lieberman when he is the opponent of the Democrat. I don't think it constitutes original research to ask where we would find the originial source for who is and isn't an unqualified (meaning no asterisk) Democrat. Another way to put it is that his status as a Democrat is disputed. That disputation a verifiable fact. I'll provide citations if needed, but I feel it should be obvious. Thesmothete 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This wikipedia article states infomation about his past. In his past, he has always been a democrat.

2. Last night, he stated that he is going to be a "Independent Democrat". I'm trying to find a video of that, but have had no luck of that so far.

3. His political beliefs are still that of a Democrat. His followers are all democrats.

4. He is becoming an "Independent Democrat" in a final attempt to save a job that he has held for years.

5. I put a citation in the infobox to a MSNBC article where it states that he is running as a Independent Democrat for this election. It says NOTHING about the future.

I don't know why this isn't good enough for you. It's logical, isn't it?dposse 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the part where he explicitly filed under the political party called "Connecticuts for Lieberman". This party is a distinct entity from the "Democratic Party". He can call it whatever he wants, and we can attribute that he has said he is running as an "Independent Democrat", but his actual party affiliation for the purposes of the November election is of the newly formed "Connecticuts for Lieberman," a separate and distinct entity from the "Democratic Party." This point is indisputable. --kizzle 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have to be precise about what we're expressing. I'm fine with calling him a Democratic Senator as long as he's a member of the Dem senate caucus. He's certainly not a "Democratic candidate" for the 2006 election (that's what the primary decided) but he's accurately a Democratic senator running as a petitioning candidate. I think dposse's point #1 above is accurate; point #2 is accurate but irrelevant to an objective description (it just states JL's opinion; JL could similarly say he's the Queen of Sweden but that wouldn't make it true); point #3 is POV and not relevant; point #4 is meaningless since "Independent Democrat" doesn't mean anything; point #5 mentions an MSNBC article about "Independent Democrat" but I can't find those words in the article. Nonetheless, I'm satisfied with the current (revision 68732856) phrasing in the infobox, that states both "Democratic" and "Independent". Phr (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --kizzle 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are in agreement that the way it is now, stating him as "Democrat, Independent", is ok. ^_^ dposse 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole argument strikes me as tedious and off-topic.

He will be on an independent, third party line this general election.

He will not be a representing the Democratic Party ticket in the state of CT this November.

That does not mean, however, that he is no longer a Democrat.

It seems pretty simple to me.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I'm ok with the infobox since it expresses "independent" and "democrat" separately (the two terms apply in different ways, as we've discussed). I don't like the intro section's description "Shortly afterward, he announced he would run in the 2006 November election as an independent Democrat on the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' ticket.", which cites an MSNBC article that actually says "Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent." The MSNBC article does not use the phrase "independent Democrat" and we should not use that neologism. Even if we do find a cite for that phrase somewhere, it should be attributed to its source, rather than simply cited as a neutral fact. CT election law forbids 3rd party candidates from using terms like "democrat" in their party names for a reason, and so any use of "independent Democrat" should be considered POV. Phr (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to get a video his speech last night. It states it there. Or i suppose we could try to find a news story that says that, or just reword the paragraph. (i vote for rewording) dposse 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no consensus on how Lieberman's party should be listed on the infobox, we should probably leave it as is. However, unless “Independent Democrat” is the name of a party, the intro section should continue to read that he is running as an independent. The article itself will clarify Lieberman’s position that, if he wins as an independent candidate, he’ll caucus with the Democrats.

-Jim Campbell 02:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, regardless of what Lieberman says himself, the party he has registered under is called "Connecticuts for Lieberman". If he says he's running for the Queen of England, we don't put "Queen of England" party under party affiliation. There is no "Independent Democratic" party, so the infobox I think should stay the same. Democratic, Independent (Connecticuts for Lieberman). Democratic because he's a Democratic senator until elections. Independent because of the ticket and party formed by petition after that. --kizzle 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats if relected is partly up to the Dem caucus and not entirely up to Lieberman. He's said he'll vote with the Dems on procedural issues, which is the current situation with Jeffords and Sanders (neither of whom are in the Dem caucus but they haven't asked to join it). I don't think JL is likely to get expelled from the caucus involuntarily, but it's not impossible (I remember there was some agitation to get Zell Miller kicked out for supporting the Republicans so often, though I don't know how serious it got). Caucuses hold private meetings to discuss political strategy, and so they might well boot a member who they think is leaking info to the other side. I think Jim Traficant was kicked out of the Dem caucus after his criminal conviction but I'm not certain of this (he was eventually kicked out of the House altogether). I wonder what other examples exist. Btw, I did modify the intro to say JL is running as an independent instead of "independent Democrat". I haven't checked whether anyone changed it since then.Phr (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the emerging consensus that the infobox should say "Democrat, Independent". I think the only thing I would oppose is that the infobox or any other reference to Joe Lieberman *unqualifiedly* call him a Democrat. So for example, I would oppose a statement that he is "a Democratic US Sentor from Connecticut" because that's disputed. However, I would support calling him "a US Senator from Connecticut who <either or both> caucuses with the Senate Democrats/won his seat with the Democratic nomination". I don't think anyone has disagreed with this, either. I'm glad we seem to be making progress. Thesmothete 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't both democratic and independent. He's Democratic now, but if he wins next term he will be an Independent under the Connecticut for Lieberman party. Can't we explain that?

I don't think it's seriously disputed that JL is (as of today) a Democratic senator from Connecticut. He's still in the Senate, he's still from Connecticut, he still is in the Senate Democratic Caucus and serves on various Senate committees as a Democrat, he's still a registered Democratic voter, etc. That may all change (especially the committee assignments) if he's elected as an independent (I don't know whether "reelected" is the right word for that situation) in November, but we're talking about today. There's some pressure from Lamont supporters for the Dem leadership to strip JL's committee assignments immediately if JL doesn't drop his independent run, but I don't know if the leadership is taking such suggestions seriously. As of right now I'd say JL is clearly still a Dem Senator in any reasonable "official" sense, just like Zell Miller was officially a Dem Senator all the way to the end (even though Miller endorsed Bush in 2004 and was the keynote speaker for the 2004 GOP convention and an awful lot of other Dems wanted to rip his lungs out). One can of course hold the opinion that JL is not a "real" Democrat in terms of philosophy or whatever, or speculate that he might get booted from the caucus sometime in the future, but those are different issues. I think if someone well-informed describes JL as a non-Democrat, they're speaking philosophically rather than literally. He stops definitely being a Democratic Senator only if either 1) he himself announces it, 2) the party leadership announces he's been booted; 3) he leaves the Senate. There's only a real dispute if he says one thing and the party leadership says another, and that hasn't happened (at least yet).

How a Senator got elected isn't terribly conclusive about what party that senator is a member of at any moment. Jeffords was elected as a Republican but he quit the party and is independent now--describing him as a Republican senator today is just plain incorrect. Ben Nighthorse Campbell similarly switched parties right in the middle of his term, so he was a Dem senator one day and a Republican senator the next. JL can in principle get elected as an independent and continue to serve in the Senate as a Democrat, and it's pretty clear that he hopes (realistically or otherwise) to do exactly that.Phr (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lieberman (as of today) is still a democratic senator in Washington D.C. Just because Ned Lamont defeated him in the primary does not mean Lieberman is no longer a senator. You'll have to wait for the actual election for that. -Trega123 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are we drawing a distinction between him being a "Democratic Senator" and a "Democratic Candidate"? Thesmothete 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe we are drawing a distinction between being a "Democratic Senator" and being a "Democratic Candidate." I also believe that that is an appropriate and factual distinction to draw. I agree with Phr that the fact that Lieberman is a Democrat is not being "seriously disputed." If he wins the election, I think he would still be considered a Democrat if he caucused with the Democrats and was registered in Connecticut as a Democrat. However, that is both debatable and an issue for another time. As the situation stands, I would say Lieberman is a Democratic Senator and an Independent/ Lieberman-for-Connecticut candidate for the Senate. --Jim Campbell 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as long as Lieberman is listed as a Democrat on the U.S. Senate web page, he should still be a considered a Democrat. Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican, is listed there as I-VT, but Lieberman is still D-CT. Talmage 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw in my 2 cents, as long as he is a registered Democrat, than his party affiliation should be labeled Democrat. In New York Politics, the Democrat candidate usually gets endorsed by the Liberal Party, and accepts that endorsement. Does that mean Hillary Clinton is a member of the Liberal Party? Of course not. Lieberman is a Democrat running as an independant --67.105.241.226 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman? There doesn't seem to have been any further discussion, and the revert wars appear to have ended. Fishhead64 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephenzhu and User:LionO haven't posted here again since you responded to the mediation. I suggest you might leave an inquiry on their talk pages. Sandy 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They might have gotten temporarily sick of the subject after the primary ended. I wouldn't be surprised to see them here again as the general election campaign intensifies (assuming JL stays in). Phr (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they both disappeared several days before the primary, when they realized there were some rules they would have to follow. Things like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP Sandy 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901632.html

Someone might add that. I'm tired ;-) Phr (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On larger resolutions (1600x1200), this page has a few large gaps, the largest one at the top of the page. -Trega123 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"800×600 was the standard resolution until around 2000. Since then, 1024×768 has been the standard resolution. Many web sites and multimedia products are designed for this resolution." [2] dposse 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we still have the current event marker at the top? Other Senators up for re-election don't have them. See Lincoln Chafee and George Allen. Thesmothete 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the removal of the "current event" marker. Although the election is ongoing, I don't believe that "information may change rapidly as the event progresses," as the marker indicates. I think that was an appropriate header as we headed into the Senate primary. For now, the facts and events have been decided. Lamont won the primary. Lieberman is running as a third-party candidate. We might have a few polls to post, but other than that, no big news until November.

If we get another agreeing opinion or two without a descent, I'll pull the marker. If someone disagrees, tell us so and tell us why so we can hash it out. Thanks.

--Jim Campbell 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that we keep it. Lieberman's situation is pretty much unique- he lost to the primary, and in the next couple weeks this race will really shape up. Since his name is still in the news, I say we keep it. --Smedley Hirkum 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in the next couple of weeks the race will shape up. The unfolding of the 2006 campaign, however, refers to the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006, which already has a current event tag. Although it seemed to be briefly, this article is not about the 2006 election. It is a biographical encyclopedia article about Joe Lieberman’s life. Only major events in that life are worthy of inclusion. His loss in the 2006 primary was a major event and should therefore be included, as should some details about that loss. However, this article is not a proper place to detail the day-to-day, blow-by-blow unfolding of the general election. Those events should, as I said, go on the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 page.

As far as significant events go, the next major event in Lieberman’s life will likely not come until November. Therefore, I’ll reiterate that I believe that the current events tag should be removed. The article should detail the *major* events of the 2006 primary and general election. This article should reference the Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 page, where a more detailed (and volatile) account of the 2006 election will be available. --Jim Campbell 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Sandy 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't that info also moved to the election article ? Sandy 20:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Smedley Hirkum 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty interesting: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155

Phr (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

calling Lieberman on primary day, here's a reliable source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-08-10T164937Z_01_N10461049_RTRUKOC_0_US-REPUBLICANS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

--Smedley Hirkum 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's notable because?

It's notable because on primary day, the campaign accused Lamont supporters of '"Rovian tactics", and Karl Rove has said "[Lieberman is] a personal friend, and I called him Tuesday afternoon -- 5:00, thereabouts -- and wished him well on his election that night, it was a personal call."[3] --The lorax 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so he's friends with Rove. I don't see what the big deal is. Had Lieberman suddenly won the primary and someone suspected "Rovian" foul-play, I could understand the need to think about including it. Otherwise, where's the beef? Dubc0724 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I advocate this kind of random slander, but "Rovian tactics" is usually meant to mean legitimate abuse of the US media rather than actually cheating. While Lieberman is far from the only person whose campaign was founded on FUD and lies, his campaign has been, well, founded on FUD and lies. Associating with Rove is not a great way to distance onesself from this. Chris Cunningham 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]