Talk:Joe Lieberman

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

Civil rights hero[edit]

Added 4 sources concurring with opinion that Joe Lieberman was hailed by many as a civil rights hero for repealing dadt someone keeps changing it which I think is uncalled for If I'm mistaken let me knowCotton Rogers (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If four people calling him something means "many" people called him that, I'm willing to bet we can add that many call his lots of often contradictory things. The problem is that "many" is a weasel word. Did nearly everyone call him that? 1% of people? Who knows? Heck "many people believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked"[Jimmy, a 7 year old in rural Kansas][some paranoid guy who needs medication][a liberal arts major who misunderstood the question][some guy selling a book] Right? No, not right. We can certainly find four sources saying his leadership on this issue was a shallow, politically motivated move. That's not "many" either. It's a divisive issue. Personally, I'm thrilled it happened and I think Lieberman was well situated to take the reins on this issue. Many people agree with me. Many people do not. Neither statement says anything of any substance and both hide the truth of the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source 10 clearly states "that many Liberals hail Joe Lieberman as a Civil Rights Hero" also I don't think you can find four reliable and unbias sources that state "his leadership on this issue was a shallow, politically motivated move" since Joe Lieberman voted against the original dadt law back in 1993 has continually been against the ban and has always advocated it's repeal also he was not well situated to take the reins since the senate had pretty much given up on the issue also he lead other efforts to repeal back when it was not a popular thing to do. how can anyone say with any merit that it was shallow and politcally motivated while he is not even running for re-election anyone who wants to spin this major acomplishment to diminsh it is not doing a fair and neutral job; also they ignoring Liebermans history on the issue in order to be iconclastic quite frankly anyone that says joe Lieberman was shallowly politically motivated to do this is doing out of bias with no evidence to the contrary but Hearsy while all the historical facts tell us otherwise as an encylopedia we cannot base our assertions on hearsay but facts and the facts say Lieberman did this geniunelyCotton Rogers (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be missing my point. One source says "many Liberals" and you've translated that to "many". Do you honestly think we can/should say "many" any time we find four sources that agree? Again, "many say that George W. Bush and the British royal family are lizardman/human hybrids" or "many believe the Earth is hollow and the inside is populated by Nazis who escaped Germany at the end of WWII" or "many believe that humans do not need vitamin B12 and should eat absolutely nothing but raw fruit" or "many Catholics say every so-called 'Pope" since the Vatican II reforms are not legitimate" and so on. "Many" is a weasel word. As sourced, it means "at least four people", which is meaningless. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again source 10 clearly states many liberals hail Joe Lieberman as a civil rights hero meaning it is definately more than four so yes Ive translated the word many to "many" that seems perfectly reasonable since they are the same word also I've sourced many legitimate and unbias news outlets while you argument is species since it would be absolutley impossible to find even one legitmate and unbias source claiming "many say that George W. Bush and the British royal family are lizardman/human hybrids" while they are more sources that say Lieberman is a civil rights hero there is even a whole google search devoted to Joe Lieberman Civil Rights Hero However the fact is I've have had to add four sources claiming the same fact to alleviate your concerns if I keep adding sources the article it will look ridiculus and I should not have to. The fact many call Joe Lieberman a civil rights hero is a fact as sourced 4 times by me while those claims you made to prove a point up above are fiction as an enclyopedia we must report the facts not fiction also the article should state what the referanced sources say not what people think it should say.Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are turning the phrase "many liberals" into the word "many". "Source 10" seems to have changed since you edited. At the moment, "source 10"([1]) is a blog, not a reliable source. I have restored the tag, as it clearly applies, "If a Wikipedia article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article contains inaccurate statement(s)." I am concerned that this particular statement is inaccurate.
At the moment, there are five sources cited for that one sentence: "As Senator he was hailed by many[dubious – discuss] as a "civil rights hero" for leading the historic and ultimately successful effort to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell military policy that barred homosexuals from openly serving in the military, by introducing and championing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010."
The first source, Huffington Post, states that Lieberman "will be the lead sponsor of legislation". This says he planned to sponsor the legislation, supporting nothing in the sentance.
The second source, Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast, says that a blogger called him a "civil rights hero". Not "many", "a blogger". It also states that "some lefties" gave him "grudging credit", far different from being "hailed by many as a civil rights hero".
The third source is the aforementioned blogger. Yes, the blogger calls him a civil rights hero. If you read the article blog post, he doesn't argue that "many" called him a civil rights hero. In fact, it seems pretty clear he used the blaring headline as an attention grabber and barely mentioned Lieberman after that.
The fourth source, is another blog. It says "hailed as a civil rights hero by liberal Democrats". Again, we have something other than "many". Not "many liberals" or "many Democrats" but "liberal Democrats".
Finally, we have a non-blog source! Time's "Swampland". They blare: "Joe Lieberman, Hero of the Democratic Base"! Great! Still not that elusive "many", but hey...oops...wait... they take it back in the first sentence: "Well, not exactly."
From these sources -- your sources -- you've distilled that many hailed him as a civil rights hero? I mean, I get that you added a claim, the claim was challenged and you're trying to support it. But your sources lead to, perhaps, something far more limited. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as i see this the use of Hero is subjective, the real definition reserved for people who save lives at great risk to, or even the loss of, their own life...
yet you are further qualifying by not only saying many, but liberals also. even if you could prove "most liberals call him a hero" you wouldn't have a consensus... infact, if all Dems favored and all Republicans opposed, i believe you will find that the consensus would oppose (republicans are not voting in the numbers that dems do but if they did every republican would win)
and even though it would be a paper tiger if you could find one, I doubt there is any actual award of great repute that has been given for his heroism. (even Al Gore has a Nobel Prize while the subject is often shown to be fake science)
in short, you can write it as far as facts will allow, he DID support, he likely had opposition so you could research and cite that opposition, and i assume it passed (or you wouldn't think him a hero) after all, not too many losers are called heros. so stick to listing and supporting each point without editorializing as to the ramifications Qazwiz (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was Sen Lieberman a freedom rider?[edit]

Schwerner, Goodman, Lieberman, and Chaney The veep nominee's record as a civil rights warrior can help the Dems keep the black vote. [2] Geo8rge (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more salient question would be what did Lieberman do about the draft and Vietnam after he graduated right in the middle of that. The draft was THE biggest issue facing a healthy young man in 1967, as those of us who were healthy young males back then knew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retired from Senate at the end of 2012.[edit]

Replaced by Chris Murphy, formerly representative of CT-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.217.154 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of text saying that Lieberman was responsible for Al Gore losing the 2000 election[edit]

Today I am removing text that is not supported by its source. Here is an explanation with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies:

I. Problem[edit]

A passage of text in the Joe Lieberman article:

  1. contains an unsupported attribution, as defined by WP:WEASEL, and
  2. states a claim that is not supported by the cited source.

II. Findings[edit]

  1. In the "2000 Vice Presidential candidacy" section of the Joe Lieberman article, the following sentence appears:

    "Polling also indicated that Lieberman had badly[editorializing] lost his televised debate against Dick Cheney,[55] leading some[weasel words] to suggest later that Gore had lost the election due to choosing Lieberman as his running mate.[56]"

  2. The second half of that sentence, which I've bolded here, will be referred to in this note as the questionable text.
  3. About a week ago, another editor tagged the phrase "leading some to suggest" with the WP:WEASEL tag, as the phrase used an unsupported attribution. The original editor who wrote the the questionable text has not addressed that tag, nor has any other editor.
  4. The questionable text points to a source, Citation #56, which is a December 22, 2009 article by Mark Shields called "SHIELDS: If You Could Change One Thing, Al Gore" published in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. I will refer to that article in this note as the source. Note: The link to the source in the Lieberman article Reference section is incorrect. A simple Google search found the real link: http://www.creators.com/liberal/mark-shields/if-you-could-change-one-thing-al-gore.html
  5. I studied the source. It does not say that Gore lost the election because he chose Lieberman. The columnist talks about the possibility of winning if Gore had chosen the Florida Senator Bob Graham. The source is an opinion piece expressing the thoughts of the columnist.
  6. In the "Tagging a sentence, section, or article" section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability article, the following text appears (I've added bold for emphasis):

    "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with [verification needed]. Material that fails verification may be tagged with [failed verification] or removed. . . Take special care with material about living people. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page."

III. Conclusion[edit]

Joe Lieberman is a living person. He is famous. The questionable text on his Wikipedia article states that Lieberman responsible for Al Gore losing the election; such a passage qualifies as "contentious material".

The source does not support the questionable text. Therefore, the questionable text should be removed immediately. I am removing it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendyrandy7290 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead contradiction[edit]

The lead contradicts itself. The opening sentence says he is a former democrat/current independent, uncited. In the middle paragraph, it states that is an "registered democrat", cited. Is the former true, meaning the latter must be rewritten to reflect current conditions? --Zfish118 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal Life (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.)[edit]

the qualifying parentheses to discount goldwater qualifying as a jew (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.) is not properly stated.... it is obvious to me that it is trying to claim that his parents were mixed religions(unequally yoked) thus they were shunned thus their son was not raised as a jew but is is too convoluted to immediately see the expected meaning. it should name him (not "their son") so i suggest the following instead: (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives for being "unequally yoked" when he married an Episcopalian; so Goldwater was raised Episcopalian.)

but I am not sure the distinction is fair since no geneticist would consider him less than half Jewish and Obama is only half black yet touted as a Black president. although this would make him a non-practicing Jew.... also I think repudiated is wrong to use though i got no replacement shunned isnt a jewish word but atm the correct term eludes me (disowned perhaps? but that only refers to inheritance not being put out of the religion) Qazwiz (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC) found list of possible wordsReply[reply]

  • blackball
  • blacklist,
  • exclude,
  • excommunicate,
  • expel,
  • shun and
  • snub

but none of them are specifically Jewish actions and something tells me that there is a term or ritual that can be cited.... Any practicing Jews that can help please? Qazwiz (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not understand why there is SO much discussion included here and in the article itself about his religion / Judaism, and how anything beyond a few sentences could be important. No other politicians include so much text about their religious backgrounds, beliefs, etc. Heck, the entire section about Goldwater should be deleted as completely irrelevant to this article. It has no bearing on the subject. There are no similar diatribes about John F Kennedy's religion (for example), and he was actually ELECTED president. In this case, we have a former senator being treated as if he were the first Jew ever elected to congress. I'm sorry, but it is WAY over the top, and far out of scope for this article. Too much non essential information. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about 'Joe Lieberman was the second Jew to ...' in light of:

He was the first observant Jew to run on a major party Presidential ticket.[citation needed] (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.)

Well, Joe Lieberman was the first RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVANT Jew to run for any major party's US Presidential ticket, since Barry Goldwater wasn't religiously observing Judaism. I think that the claim deserves some unpacking; others don't. MaynardClark (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...he remains closely associated with the Democratic Party"[edit]

This is part of the third sentence in the article. Is this correct? Can it be better qualified? sourced? Or can it be omitted - and addressed in the body of the article? Jd2718 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just looked up his voter registration. He is registered to vote as a Democrat in the Bronx, NY, where he now lives. 13 October 2020 Charliehall (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dates[edit]

There are numerous mistakes and incorrect dates in this entry, e.g. the date of the biography of John M. Bailey written by Lieberman is off by 15 years Aarongoode (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mistake[edit]

In the Article under post Senate Career in this paragraph. In July 2022, Liberman became one of the founding members of a group of U.S. business and policy leaders which shares the goal of engaging constructively with China and improving U.S.-China relations. Lieberman is mistakingly spelt Liberman instead of the usual Lieberman 68.13.201.117 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lieberman is a very conservative Democrat, not a moderate[edit]

While it's true that Lieberman is a semi-Democrat, there is nothing moderate or centrist about his opinions. When he lost the 2006 Democrat Primary, he ran as an Independent against (and beat) the Dem candidate.

As the article describes in detail, Lieberman has always received strong support and endorsements from the GOP.

Lieberman endorsed the GOP candidate, John McCain, for president in 2008.

He is strongly anti-gay, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Bill of Rights.

Lieberman is currently working to help third-party candidates split off the Independent vote from the Dems to support the election of the ultra-right GOP candidate for president in 2024. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-the-2024-presidential-alternative-many-voters-will-want/ar-AA1a0D3D

Please cite whatever facts you find about his career, but never describe right-wing Lieberman as any kind of moderate. Irelandkm (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Lieberman&oldid=1150723187"