The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
