Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Support Of Hugo Chavez Deleted From Page

My posting of a photo and mention of Sheehan's support for Hugo Chavez was removed as "biased"! How is that in any way biased? Is there any dispute of it's factual nature? It seems to me that it was removed by those who are biased. I would like an explanation as to how reporting a fact is biased!!?? It is not an opinion it is fact! Again, how is that a violation of policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)

That picture looks fake to me. Where did you get it? The Ungovernable Force 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks "fake" to you? Oh I guess that settles it then? Are you an authority on photo forgeries? Or is this a "hunch"?
I suppose this is fake as well!: *Sheehan and Chavez on MSNBC's web site I guess you don't watch the news. This was all over the news networks, and very well documented. Were you really not aware of this event happening?
Do all these look "fake" to you? For the record, there was nothing fake looking about the photo in the first place.
Sheehan is glowingly embracing Chavez. I guess these photos are not "neutral"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)
You don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm not an expert on photos, therefore I asked where you found them. And no, I don't watch the corporate "news" that often, and I don't really like Sheehan or Chavez so I don't really follow their stories too much either. I had no idea this happened. If you are going to have it in though, you might want to make the caption less obviously POV though. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You were being a jerk by deleting the picture. 68.83.23.147 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) oorah
I don't have the power to delete anything. The Ungovernable Force 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, what do you suggest as an appropriate caption then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)

I re-inserted it in the proper place (when discussing her trip to Venezuela) with a less POV caption "Sheehan embracing Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez after praising him." I am uncertain if "embrace" is appropriate for the gesture shown. We should leave evaluations of Chavez out of this article at least. --Habap 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The word 'embrace' is perfectly fine to use in this case. Also, 'The Ungovernable Force' - don't go around removing images just because you think they're fake. Next time do some research before making yourself look like an ass.--Skwurlled 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, The Ungovernable Force made a mistake. Lay off and try to be civil. Assume good faith before reacting. This article is beset upon by enough vandals that I can't imagine why editors who want to actually work to improve the article are at each other's throats. Be cool, daddy-o. --Chris Griswold 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and what's more, I never even removed the photo (look in the history). I merely responded to the question on this page and tried to explain why someone else may have removed it. The Ungovernable Force 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

I see that people have been discussing this a lot, but I'm curious what the concensus is. Are we linking every article which mentions Sheehan? For example, I removed a link which, to my mind, is tangential in the extreme. The first time I read the article, I couldn't see that it mentioned Sheehan at all. I had to use Ctrl+F to even find the name "Sheehan" in the article., and her name first appears in the 19th paragraph. This link is the cruftiest of the crufty. So what is the concensus about these links anyway? --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Until I opened the link, I agreed with you. If you read through the four or five paragraphs that discuss Sheehan, people's opinions of her and her affect on Bush's supporters, it's hard to argue that the poll doesn't discuss Sheehan. If the article and the poll only mentioned that Sheehan may have affected the poll, it would be tangential, but this actually does discuss people's opinions of Sheehan. So, it ain't very crufty at all. (How did you miss Sheehan when getting to the bottom of the article?)
There are probably a great number of links here that are not useful. --Habap 15:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article does mention and discuss Sheehan. But Sheehan is nowhere near the main focus of this article; her presence in this article is of perhaps tertiary importance. More importantly for inclusion in Cindy Sheehan, this link doesn't add anything to the article at all. For example, there are four other articles describing polls about Sheehan directly. Why is this fifth one here? Actually, looking at the list of links, it seems that editors have decided to include everything which has even been written on the web which contains the words "Cindy Sheehan". In related news, why on earth is there a link to an editorial by Michelle Malkin? All this stuff needs to go.
In any case, this article needs tons of work. It's pretty clear that this thing is the end result of a huge POV war; it looks way more like a cable TV news debate than a Wikipedia article should. I want to jump in and make some changes, although I admit I'm a little reticent to do so...:-) --Deville (Talk) 15:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant community that grew out of Camp Casey in August and operates online and also works together in various phases in relief work in NOLA. There are several listserves and now a website at http://www.campcaseycommunity.org. I'm not involved here at Wikipedia, but suggest that this be added. Thank you. --Peacearena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.244.229 (talk • contribs) .

If those forums are notable, they could be linked from the Camp Casey page, but not here as they don't necessarily involve Cindy Sheehan. --Habap 13:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheehan's campaign against the Iraq War

A not so small thing. Sheehan "has always been a democrat". This is not needed and weasel worded. It also makes an assumption all democrats are anti-war. If Sheehan had always been against war, it would be an addition, but being a member of the democratic party does not equal opposition to war. So this frames all war opposition as partisan. That is incorrect. Please remove that sentence.


First the small stuff: The second paragraph ought to be broken into two seperate paragraphs; it just helps it to flow better.

Also, the following paragraph (currently the thrid) reads:

Sheehan gave another interview on October 4, 2004 stating that she did not understand the reasons for the Iraq invasion and never thought that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. She further stated that her son's death had compelled her to speak out against what she feels to be an unjust war, in order to help to bring the troops home and hold politicians accountable.

I do not wish to violate POV rules and I realize these are Sheehan's own opinions, but I think a premise is necessary. Certainly, Sheehan's entitled to her opinion, but that opinion is worthless if she cannot substantiate it. More importantly, I would think it an injustice, on our part, for this article to continue without some sort of abridgement reminding the reader that Sheehan is not an authority of any kind. Remember the folly of Kenndey's campaign against Eisenhower's administartion and its alumunus - his opponent - Richard Nixon and you have enough evidence proving the information the government is privy to is not what the general public is privy to. Remember the (lack of) success of British arms inspectors in Germany during the inter-war era and you have enough evidence proving the potential impotency of that role.

Sheehan's not a political authority, at best she's a mother devastated by the loss of a son who voluntarily committed himself to his nation during the time of war, and has since divided her family and contributed to the divide of the nation. I think the premise ought to be gentle, but failing to remind the reader that Sheehan's position is not an authoritative one is a violation of the POV rules. I posted this before changing anything because I want discussion first - remember that old Athenian proverb about war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.104.237 (talk • contribs) .

The quote clearly says, that it's Sheehan's personal opinion, therefore I don't see a NPOV violation. Raphael1 21:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur with Raphael here. It merely relates what she thinks and feels and clearly states that this is her opinion. Her opinion is quite clearly going to be judged based on whether one agrees with her or not. Stating she is not qualified would be, in and of itself, POV. I agree with you that she is uniquely unqualified, though. --Habap 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia and not sure how to pose this question... I came looking for background information. My recollection was that many of her relatives had served in the military, and that she was generally supportive of the service as a career--but that something changed, perhaps starting even before her son died. Shanen 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

First Picture

The first picture of a page, optimally should show what the person looks like. (See Articles: Ruch Limbaugh, and Michael Moore). The current first picture, is a little small, filled with noise, and her face is covered with a microphone. I believe it would be more useful for depicting what her views and activities might be, rather than as a first picture. --P-Chan 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Invalid IF THEN

The quondam implies that ‘regardless of the fact’ [id est. ‘ALTHOUGH’] that Sheehan was a DEMOCRAT and ‘questioned the urgency’, she did not protest the war before her son’s death. This logically implies that IF a Democrat AND ‘questioned urgency of the war’ THEN ‘active in the anti-war effort’. This does not follow.

Within the U.S. Senate 59% of Democrats voted for JOINT RESOLUTION 114. Within The House 40% of Democrats voted for JOINT RESOLUTION 114. Although it is clear that being a Democrat make a person statistically MORE likely to ‘question the urgency’ of the Iraq war, tis logically leap cannot be made absolutely.

The changes convey same factual information and meaning. Sheehan did not engage in “anti-war effort until after her son's death”. Changes remove prejudicial language and leave motivation and causation to be judged by the reader. Pands1016

Statements to Canadians

It is also important to add that her statements to Canadians through a letter has received much criticism for misstements, generalizations and misinformation.

Maybe if we knew what you meant by this we could add something. Since you seem to, why don't you add the information yourself, if you think it's important/necessary to have in the article?

I've just read the new text about Canada. My opinion is that it doesn't seem important enough to include in this encyclopedia article. It's more relevant to Canada than to Sheehan herself. Badagnani 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It begins to show her international role in spreading teh message and breifly describes some of the events so far. I am researching more and will update as her tour continues. The part posted fit with the paragraphs above which showed concerns about misrepresentation of facts. It is another example ofa problem she has been having with credibility at times. Nicholas McLeod

It's at least as important as her statements in Ireland and Venezuela. I mean, if she feels qualified to speak on Venezuelan politics (applauding Chavez) and also speaks on Canadian politics, shouldn't both statements be included so that the reader can make their own conclusions about the validity of her statements? --Habap 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. The article entry is about Miss Sheehan and her causes - Canada being one them. Her vocal stance on Canadian support for American war dodgers should be included. I'll write something up when I get the time.--Skwurlled 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs inline citations

It seems to be the most acceptable form of referencing on wikipedia, plus it allows you to view the quality of the citations easily.--P-Chan 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking out against the American contractors killed

I wish I could find the written source for this. Early this year, I was watching an independent cable TV channel that aired one of Sheehan's speeches to some anti-war group. The channel was called UCSB TV-I assume that stands for UC Santa Barbara? In the speech, she referenced the killings of four U.S. contractors back in the spring of 2004. She said that the contractors were not there to help the Iraqis re-build Iraq, they were there to cause harm to them. She called them "U.S. mercenaries". If anyone can find the full source for this-date, location, exact quote, and whom the speech was given to, please add it to the article. Can't add until full citation is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.200.240.19 (talk • contribs)

Photo credit

Why is a photo credit listed for the main photo for this article if it is from the Commons. Such credits are nonstandard on Wikipedia, used only when they are required to use the image, which clearly cannot be the case for a Commons image. Would anyone object to its removal? That is what the image page is for. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace Mom

Should be readded, I will do so later if no one can prove why not. Google News shows relevance for this, as does straight google search. rootology 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted here. rootology 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Um... I reverted that edit 3 minutes after it happened. Do you need to purge your cache or something? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Shoot, thanks, nevermind. Yeah, Firefox choked. rootology 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it seems the quote could turn into a revert war.. could somebody add both quotes perhaps? --Syd 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed quite a bit the various epithets used over time by Sheehan's detractors (some quite vicious). "Peace mom" is quite accurate and not pro or con, she is a peace activist. The just-removed statement, however, is not widespread and a profanity, thus I don't believe it appropriate for our article. The pro and con statements, further, belong in the article that was split off for this purpose. Badagnani 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not weighing in on this subject, but I am weighing in on Badagnani's comment that it belongs in the criticism article. You've stated this before, however I dissagree and so does Wikipedia. This information should be mentioned in the main article. However, if the article is long enough and warrants (which this one does) a break off section, then you mention it here and elaborate on the other page. However, it needs to be touched on in the main article to cut down on clicks. --Maniwar (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the anti-Sheehan commentator's epithet "tragedy whore," correct? If that must be added, then all the other similar names given to her by equally well known anti-Sheehan commentators must necessarily be added as well: "the Ditch Witch," etc. But do you really feel that the inclusion of such name-calling significantly improves Wikipedia? I believe we already know these pro-Iraq War media personalities are strongly opposed to Sheehan's Crawford, Texas camp-outs. I don't believe we generally include the insulting names that other similar public figures have been called over time, though I'm sure there have been some equally fanciful ones. Badagnani 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have to clarify, chuckle, and admit...I don't specifically mean the name calling. I'm speaking more on the criticism of her. For example, this edit here [1] could have been cleaned up and left in there rather then deleted. I really was responding to a couple times you mention that criticism needs to go in the other article, but as pointed out above, I disagree. I do agree the name calling should be left out and that the article needs to be clean, legible, and structured, but the editing out of her criticism is too much. I wish all the editors of this article would clean up rather than delete. Anyway, sorry about the mistake, and again I agree that the name calling should not be left in. --Maniwar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you look in the history you'd see that there was a great cornucopia of pro and con comments originally, as the story and Wikipedia article were developing. There was a profusion of anti-Sheehan comments, as every miniscule non-notable anti-Sheehan statement by one of the conservative commentators would be added day by day. Finally editors decided to split them out into a separate article. So your proposal is essentially trying to take the article back where it was -- too big! Badagnani 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Comics character

Not sure if this might help with the article, but in Civil War, Marvel Comics' current comic book series whose themes reflect on current events, there is a character inspired by Cindy Sheehan named Miriam Sharpe. I just thought the editors working on this article would be interested to know that and might even be able to use it as a reference to hir impact on the culture. --Chris Griswold 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

State of the Union

Regarding Sheehan's purported reluctance to attend the State of the Union speech, this is a primary source:

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746 Badagnani 00:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense now, since there is a source. You probably should put that source in the article. --Blue Tie 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent interview

Has anyone seen on Fox News Cindy's interview? It was the one where she was comparing a Twilight Zone episode where someone goes back in time to kill Hitler. Then she says that she wanted to go back in time to kill George Bush. Sick. Anyway, maybe someone could put some info on this in the article. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Family Statement

User:Pgc512's edit to Cindy Sheehan was very POV. The statement says Other Sheehan family members and if one reads carefully, they will note that it does not infer 'all' family members. This statement is presenting the families very public statement and no other family member has come out to challenge any different. Why is it that people have an issue with it? Is it because it does not paint her as a saint in her (some) family's eyes? Maniwar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of that letter probably belongs in Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, where it was earlier, as that article was split off from the original Cindy Sheehan article, until someone re-added it without the necessary context. The context is important: Quartarolo apparently wrote the letter herself and does not name the other family members. Why didn't other family members speak out about whether they agree or disagree with the letter? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Most people don't want anything to do with controversy and regardless of their feelings wouldn't have an interest in speaking out (or giving greater importance to the letter by even addressing it at all). Badagnani 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there are too many POV edits going on in the Sheehan article. Like the discussion below (Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry campaign). I cited five sources, both mainstream and conservative. Yet, when the new sources, which by the way tend to be liberal, are added, they are left in the article? This is not a criticism. I was simply pointing out that other Sheehan family members dissagree with Cindy's 'apparent' personal agenda. If things to do with Hugo Chavez made the article, this deserves a spot. Maniwar (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sick of the POV edits. Since when is Salon.com a reputable source??? Druge and MSNBC are reputable sources, however Salon is not. People, make the article better and stop the obvious POV edits. Go back and read Wiki's policies. This edit meets the requirement, and several 'reputable' sources are listed. Open your eyes and stop the bias. Instead of deleting, contribute to the NPOV mood that I'm trying to establish. --Maniwar (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"contribute to the NPOV mood that I'm trying to establish" Oh yeah, your agenda is so much higher and mightier than anyone else's. Durbinmj 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comment was quite brilliant! 1) Salon is a far left and many times unreliable and unverifiable source. 2) I’ve tried to balance it by inserting reputable and known sources, Drudge, MSNBC, World Net Daily, and Washington Post. 3) I’m trying to input a neutral tone (from the beginning). As mentioned, I’ve provided sources and this is a relevant story. It made the news and was featured on all the major media outlets and therefore justifies some attention. The obvious reverts are biased and only cite far left sources that are not, to user the phrases being thrown around, not reputable sources. Again, help make the article better rather than spewing POV edits. It’s obvious that this article is attracting POV edits on both sides of the aisle. --Maniwar (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, your edits are clearly POV. What value does "but does not mention the individual names of these relatives" add to the article? This is a POV statement and is not mentioned in the news sources. Clearly you are removing NPOV statements and making them POV. Again, this article is being hit with POV from both sides and I realize that a person like Cindy makes it difficult to keep something neutral. However, your edits contribute to the POV stance. Clearly if you step back and take a look, you will see how you made this section now reads, quite more to your opinion. I do also believe that you have encroached on breaking the WP:3RR rule. Again, rather than inciting someone to edit your biased POV edits, try to help make it a neutral section. The section is about how, apparently, some of Sheehan's family have spoken out against her, not a rebuttal from her to why or who is speaking out against her. --Maniwar (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the statement simply clarifies that the email does not name the relatives purported to have co-signed the letter, and makes clear that it is not certain that they wrote the letter collaboratively. Further, it does state "aunts" but we know that DeDe Miller is one of the aunts who has protested in Crawford with Sheehan and thus cannot have been one of the writers of the letter. It is clear that there is no consensus within the family, as the public statements of DeDe Miller and Casey's sister Carly make clear. There's nothing POV about presenting the voices of both sides of the family, which is what we're doing. Thank you for your interest in this article. Badagnani 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It could be added that Sheehan has stated that she was not surprised by the Quartarolo email and that the Sheehan side of the family (i.e. her husband's side of the family) includes many pro-Bush members. That is not in dispute, though the identities of the exact co-signers of the letter are. Badagnani 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of speculation in your statements. You can speculate all day long as to who did or didn't sign. To make that statement is an interpretation and most interpretations are POV. To leave it as the article states, makes it neutral and reports what the article states. You are interpreting the article and thus influencing the mind of the reader...thus, it is truly POV and your opinion. --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an interesting point. Obviously I think the statement is necessary in that the signature implies that *all* the Sheehan relatives were in on the letter; it does imply that all the aunts were involved. DeDe Miller, another of Casey's aunts, is not actually a Sheehan but a Miller (as was Sheehan before marrying). What do other editors here think about this issue? Badagnani 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, if Drudge was the only source for this, I would delete the whole quote. However, Cindy was vouched for its authenticity. Even so, it may belong in the "controversies" article. Wherever it is, it needs the comments clarifying that it represents SOME relatives, and it is NOT clear who they are. For example, the Scaramento Union reference includes this sentence: "The letter is attributed to 'Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.'" Pgc512 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry campaign.

Why was the information regarding Cindy Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry Campaign removed?

Maybe there was no reliable source? Badagnani 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The Amazon link just added has no information about this. Also, don't you think it's POV to put the information about Kerry right at the very top of the article? Badagnani 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani - According to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible (which I did). Please justifiy why my changes do not fall within these guidelines.

Also, what does putting new information at the very top of the article have to do with POV? durbinmj
Clearly, it's because an Amazon link was provided that has no information about the sentence preceding it. Normally, if a book is quoted, a page number is given, and the bibliographic reference added. Thus, this addition is suspect as apparently no websites exist with information to back up this statement. Regarding the second, point, you know and I know that you don't believe what you are saying. Badagnani 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll cite the book using page #, etc. Second, I believe what I am saying and I still don't know what editing the very top of the article has to do with POV. Is it sacred ground or is it that as a supporter you don't want information that might be damaging to be "above the fold"? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durbinmj (talk • contribs)
Cherry picking some random unflattering bit from her book and sticking it in the introdcution is POV. A dubious, inproperly cited claim that she was "recruited" by a presidental candidate is POV. Gamaliel 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for allowing the truth.....Durbinmj 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't exaggerate, or impute purported motives of other editors. The objection was strictly due to the lack of proper sourcing and the placement of this information in the lead paragraph. On another note, I don't recall that Kerry, in his last presidential campaign, advocated a "bring the troops home now" policy. In fact, I saw him on a debate just before the election, in Texas, stating that if he were president he would have sent *more* troops to Iraq, to do the job right. It just doesn't seem plausible that he would have wished to associate with Sheehan's extreme position at that time. Badagnani 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So, as an Admin, you want to debate politics? Durbinmj 00:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I also see that the admins change edits because they "cite right-wing sources," so I know that it's pointless to try anyway. Durbinmj 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk about tendetitous editing: removing "international" from "international attention", in (it's clear from the obvious axe-grinding above) to minimize Sheehan's attention in world media. Just a moment's googling turns up:

  • Sydney Morning Herald -- 103 from smh.com.au
  • The GrauniadGuardian -- 792 from guardian.co.uk
  • BBC News -- 191 from news.bbc.co.uk
  • Le Monde -- 99 from lemonde.fr
  • Die Zeit -- 6 from zeit.de
  • Times of India -- 8 from timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Not even close to justification for removing the word. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you link some of these that were published in August of 2005 rather than some list that can't be verified? I can find no sources that she had international attention in August of 2005. If I can't cite a book with out giving the exact page why can you cite a Google search without giving the search terms you used and if these results do factually show that she was receiving international attention in August of 2005. Durbinmj 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you link some of these that were published in August of 2005 rather than some list that can't be verified? Don't insult my intelligence -- you can run the damned search yourself easily enough. You DO have internet access, right? And you can work out the whole "typing-search-terms-into-the-search-field" technique they use at Google.com, right? Let me know if you have trouble figuring it out. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the book cited is, in fact, true, a recruitment by the Kerry campaign is definitely not the most notable thing about her. I can't stand her and don't agree with her, but let her insanity stand on its own. --Habap 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the good POV. I think it does show the motivations, outside of the death of her son, for her activism and that is the only reason she has a page in Wikipedia. But, I respect that a proper cited entry is needed. Once I get that I'll try again. Durbinmj 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to www.cindyfsheehan.com under Generally Opposed because the site is poorly constructed, has dead links throughout the site and does not qualify for verifiability according to Wikipedia (should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).

I can see that this is another example of Wikipedia's community (specifically Badagnani, Gamaliel and Calton) allowing their bias and not allowing the rules to be enforced fairly throughout. Anytime you have unverifiable statements and someone says run the "G--d---ed" search yourself and the statements are allowed to remain, you know that it's usless to even try to logic. You might want to go edit that cybersex page now Calton. Durbinmj 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading this that is as frustrated as I am check out Citizendium. It is created by one of Wikipedia's founders Larry Sanger and "will be open to submissions from anyone, but the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as to volunteer "constables" who will keep the peace between warring interests." [1] These articles have only become the opinion of those you can sit at their computer 24/7 and persist in changing the posts of those of us who have contributions as well. Also, the best part is it will require accountability with the use of real names instead of these people who go around changing crap with no accountability whatsoever. Durbinmj 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a new user, you might not be familiar with our rules such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, which prohibit such attacks and insinuations you have made against other editors on this page. Please do not make such comments again and please keep the discussion civil. Thank you. Gamaliel 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What attacks and insinuations? I said that there is a bias and the rules are not being enforced fairly. I removed unverifiable statements and then was told that I had to go run the "G--d---ed" search myself to verify the facts. According to the Wikipedia policies you have cited, the burden of proof is on the author NOT the reader. No author has provided evidence to refute the changes I originally made. I have kept the discussion civil, talk to Calton about his comments. Durbinmj 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You have attacked several editors by name and you have broken the WP:3RR repeatedly. Information has been posted on this talk page to substantiate the use of the word "international". Please do not continue to insult other editors, violate WP rules, and edit war over a single word. Gamaliel 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like 1984 in here. All of a sudden Calton didn't say "G--d---ed" and no one attacked me. Nice editing guys. You can have this page, I give up. I thought I could contribute at Wikipedia but I don't have 24/7 to spend here editing history to make it look good for my bias. Durbinmj 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The word was "damned," not "goddamned," and you're correct in saying that the use of that word was not a good thing. Back to your edits: the justification behind the removal of "international" as regards news coverage at the time has turned out to be false and you attempted to insert an unsourced statement about Sheehan's purported connections to the John Kerry presidential campaign (implausible given the distance he maintained between himself and the "bring the troops home now" movement at that time). Of course you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but the two "pet issues" you have promoted here have not turned out to be valid, or enhance the article at all. I will forgive your impugning of several editors; sometimes editing can get heated but we try to avoid that. Badagnani 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

辛迪希恩 or 辛蒂希恩 = Cindy Sheehan in Chinese

Above is proof that Cindy Sheehan's protest, which was big news here (as some of us were editing the article as it was happening), also attracted significant news coverage in many European countries. My rudimentary knowledge of Chinese tells me that 辛蒂希恩 is a Mandarin Chinese transliteration for Cindy Sheehan. (Another set of characters used is 辛迪希恩.) This, and these links for articles from that time in the Chinese and Vietnamese languages: [2][3][4][5] should be enough to help the new editors move on to another more deserving issue. Sina, a Chinese news service, has a page where they covered nearly every move Sheehan made during that period: http://news.sina.com.cn/z/fzmq/index.shtml . Thanks for your interest. Badagnani 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mother Sheehan Buries Her Uterus in Texas

How notable is this? It also made Taranto’s best of the web today. It certainly does illustrate her critic's claim that she is a bit mentally unbalanced. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Divorce, Sexual Promiscuity, Affair with Lew Rockwell

I think the data from http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/AmericanMourning.pdf should be worked into the article. It is oddly missing a criticism section, so not sure where to put it. - MSTCrow 08:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an insufficient source for a defamatory allegation. The authors are known political activists. We'd need at least one more independent source for the alleged adulterous affair before we could post that to the article. -Will Beback 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of criticism of Sheehan was incorporated in this article from the very beginning; please check the edit history. Some editors believed it was actually too much criticism, but nevertheless it was there. Finally some editors decided to split it out to another article, entitled something like Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, and there it is now. Badagnani 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV TAG

I inserted a POV tag and will call for mediation if anyone deletes it. Here are the reasons I inserted the tag and I would like to discuss:

  1. The article is way too long and needs to be cleaned up, however the revert wars are too speedy on this article and instead of improving, people seem to revert. Thus, at this point cleanup is not allowed.
  2. The article is definately missing a criticism section. There needs to be a 1-3 paragraph section on this to cut down on clicks for readers/researchers. The spinoff article on Criticism can then be referenced and people can go and read that article for the rest, but a small section is needed. It's amazing how quickly a critical mention is rerverted with many breaking the 3RR rule. Rather than delete, it should be improved and tweaked.
  3. There is too much interpretation going on. For example see the conversation above about "Family" where many of Sheehan's family have spoken out against her. People are inserting interpretations and their opinions and removing what the article actually says to insert what they think it should.
  4. I believe the timeline should be spun off into its own article allowing more information to be placed in the article (i.e. #2 above).

I would really like to see much of this article condensed, cleaned up and be more bullet like. We don't need to journal her life, just hightlight and provide sources, references, etc. Also, a criticism section is definately needed and is missing in this article. I do agree that name calling needs to be left out and it needs to be clean, but all the same it needs to be allowed. What say all of you? --Maniwar (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of you who are apparently fairly new to editing at this article don't recall (though you're free to go through the edit history) that the article once consisted almost 50% various criticisms of Sheehan. Editors complained, as now, that "the article is too long and needs to be cleaned up" and that was moved to a new article entitled Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan. Further, the article also had a very comprehensive chronology of Sheehan's activities and some editors said that needed to be "cleaned up" and that was moved out to another article. At that time, some editors predicted that sometime in the future editors (motivated by the fact that they don't like what she did) would come here and try to "prove" that Sheehan's Camp Casey protest was never really big news and try to reduce the article, perhaps even to one sentence. I never believed that would happen so soon (not referring to the present editor, but the attempted removal of "international" from the lead paragraph was one such symptom. Badagnani 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In regard to the Quartarolo email, when one sends a letter (or an email, for that matter) that is really from a group of people, one actually puts the names and/or signatures of those people at the bottom of the letter. In this case, it wasn't done and the qualification in the article makes this clear, although Sheehan acknowledges that the Sheehan side of her family (i.e. her former husband's side) is largely pro-Bush. But no family is 100% unanimous politically. A very minor point to claim POV over, I think, especially as the section is balanced in discussing the publicly stated views of other of Cindy Sheehan's family members. The point about there being no criticism in the article was a decision made via consensus by many editors over a period of many months, to move that into another article. That article is balanced between pro-Sheehan and anti-Sheehan comments. There, I believe we've resolved the "POV" issues. Badagnani 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani, I am not picking on you specifically, but I do not believe this is a good article. Again, the revert war both pro and anti is too much. The article is in fact not balanced and it is not a good resource. The main page needs to combine both good and bad. Perhaps a timeline of the events could be spun off to it's own article. This article needs much help, but the edit wars are frustrating. Go and look at another article of controversy like George Bush or Bill O'Reilly (the commentator) or Al Franken and you will see a better balance. Granted, some of them could use cleaning too, but they do a much better presentation than this one. Clean up is definately needed. I will edit my reasons to add a 4th one that perhaps the timeline could be split off into it's own article thus shortning the main for more "meat" rather than the fluff. Lastly, you again keep interpreting the article to say and influence the reader. The articles "don't say" the names are missing. If you want to state that, then it needs to be outside of the quote and maybe in a dispute section. Don't interpret the article be they pro or anti. --Maniwar (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe I did already explain that the timeline was removed to a separate article. What you notice about the lack of flow of the article probably results from the fact that it has been hacked to pieces by numerous editors on a constant basis since its inception (including, as discussed earlier, cutting entire sections out and moving them to other articles), but, if you've been editing this article for any length of time, you'll note that it has arrived in this state through the consensus of editors. Badagnani 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the qualification of the "signature" of the Quartarolo email, I did ask what other editors thought about it. There was one response: Personally, if Drudge was the only source for this, I would delete the whole quote. However, Cindy was vouched for its authenticity. Even so, it may belong in the "controversies" article. Wherever it is, it needs the comments clarifying that it represents SOME relatives, and it is NOT clear who they are. For example, the Scaramento Union reference includes this sentence: "The letter is attributed to 'Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.'" Pgc512 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Badagnani 16:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look here [6] you will note that Pgc512 is happy when salon or some other liberal media is quoted, however his/her reference is in regards, specifically, Drudge. I saw that response but did not put any weight in it. Also, if you look back at Pgc512 edits, you will quickly see that comments only exist around Drudge when it comes to Cindy, so some bias may exist there. I would like to see more feedback and comments about this. I ask you, do you not feel that this article could be improved on? I could understand if I was trying to bash the lady, but I'm trying to ask that a more NPOV be presented and not just the good. I'm also asking for a shorter, more concise, better article be set forward rather than this blog of a timeline. --Maniwar (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Maniwar, you say "Pgc512 is happy when salon or some other liberal media is quoted". And you give a reference where I deleted the Drudge email (because it needed to be qualified).... Please do not make false accusations about me and give bogus refernces to support them. It brings your own credibility into question. Pgc512 18:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't happy at the time that the chronology and criticism was split off. But we operate by consensus and that was the consensus at the time, as certain editors were "ganging up" on this issue. It is true that the article was getting very long. However, maybe you weren't editing at that time, but the number of non-notable random criticisms that were being added for the sake of "balance" before the criticism section was split out was truly staggering. Badagnani 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maniwar and added the POV-check tag. The only edits that are ever allowed to stay, especially criticisms of Sheehan, are edits done by Badagnani, Calton or Maniwar who suffer from m:MPOV. Durbinmj 01:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that the name you "revert" to (no pun intended) when the reasoning behind the edits you feel so strongly about turn out to be false (such as your insisting on the removal of "international" from press coverage without first bothering to research whether that was true or not)? Badagnani 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What name are you referring to? Durbinmj 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are accusing me of the "Wendy" vandalism over the past few minutes. Notice the person who did this has an IP of 152.163.100.200. Now notice my IP when I am not logged in. 72.47.13.0 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)(durbinmj posting while not logged in to show IP)
Here's the edit made by User:152.163.100.200, which I justly reported (the "Wendy" vandal has been active for many weeks now): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cindy_Sheehan&diff=82755519&oldid=82755432 Badagnani 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The "name" is m:MPOV. Badagnani 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, sorry for the misunderstanding. The m:MPOV name is not what I "revert" to. It was intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek. However, after watching this article for the past week or so, that is my opinion. I'm not looking for a flame war, just contributions. I feel that the classification of you and others using m:MPOV is ideal because, from what I've seen, the article describes some actions taken in here perfectly. Particularly, from the m:MPOV article; "the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral. This leads to the associated belief that you are a special expert on the topic, and have particular authority to dictate how the article should read." And also, "You know you're acting in good faith, but assume many others involved are acting in bad faith. You believe that all other versions of the article are biased. You refer to your preferred version as the "NPOV version" in edit summaries. You believe it is necessary for you to revert the article more than three times a day." Also, "You accuse others of conspiring to produce a bad version of the article." To be fair, I did realize when I read m:MPOV that I suffered from a couple of the symptoms as well. These are, "You believe it is necessary for you to revert the article more than three times a day," and "You threaten to quit Wikipedia for good if you don't get your way — yet you don't actually leave." I apologize for my MPOV.
Now let's get back to the subject Maniwar intended this section to be, POV tag.
Durbinmj 04:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that all of this hinges on one single edit: the clarification of the "signature" of the Quartarolo email. Most reverts to this article, however, involve the removal of patent vulgarities or nonsense such as "Wendy" but of course, as with any article, improvements are always welcome. The removal of "international" was not such an instance. In the case of the clarification of the "signature," I did ask for other editors' input, and one editor did respond. We do operate by consensus, and you'll find that if your argument is compelling, we do tend to change our minds. That's a sign of advanced thinking and it works both ways. Badagnani 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
First, if I am understanding you right, improvements are always welcome but not without an argument with you? The use of international is an issue for me, no matter how much you belittle it (and so far the only citation that has been provided is some articles in Chinese that a person needs a translator to read). But I will concede you that point only because I don't want to suffer a banning or blacklisting of any means and I don't have the means or time to argue this point indefinitely. I assumed that this talk page was for others input and when something is in question it shouldn't be included in the article until a citation has been provided to be safe and steer clear of a POV.
Second, I really don't appreciate your backhanded attempts at insults. The inference to your "advanced thinking" gives me the impression you are compensating for your shortcomings.
Durbinmj 05:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So you've already forgotten about this?
  • Sydney Morning Herald -- 103 from smh.com.au
  • The GrauniadGuardian -- 792 from guardian.co.uk
  • BBC News -- 191 from news.bbc.co.uk
  • Le Monde -- 99 from lemonde.fr
  • Die Zeit -- 6 from zeit.de
  • Times of India -- 8 from timesofindia.indiatimes.com
That posting can't have been more than 1 week ago. I am happy to discuss with you, but this point is becoming tiresome. No insults were made nor intended, my posts until and including this one have been made in good faith. Badagnani 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Badagnani. Removing international was unjustified. If you have about 10 days to exhaustively review the edit history, you'll see that I have often disagreed with him, so I am not part of his cabal. ;-) --Habap 11:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly dissagree with Durbinmj in that I am part of some cabal. I also disagree with Badagnani in that it's about two articles. All of you refer back to why I posted this. This article is POV and needs clean up. Again, it can be a much better written article, but, when an edit is made, it is quikly reverted or changed. As far as the majority, one person has sided with you Badagnani, and I've quickly pointed out that this editor only favors liberal sources such as Salon dot com which by far is not a reputable source. And now you see one person, Durbinmj, agrees with me on the POV flavor of this site. I welcome any outside input to this discssion, but I feel it cannot get better till you all allow edits to take place. --Maniwar (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, though I did not chime in, but I agree with the "international." Since Cindy has been outside of the US a couple times to bash Bush, it has become and international scene. But to me that's a minor issue when there are much larger issues needing to be addressed. --Maniwar (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And I've said (and will reiterate) that, as with any article on Wikipedia, if the edit is perceived to be a good one by the consensus of the community of editors, then it will be embraced, and won't be reverted. We all build on one another's strengths to continually improve articles. But most edits we have to deal with here involve reverting vandalism, attacks, and uninformed edits such as the removal of "international." I think we've already gone over this. If you'd actually list specifics of other things that you believe is wrong with the article, then we can evaluate them. Badagnani 13:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani, do you sleep :) - - Refer back to my original post of this POV section, and I reiterate, this article is too long and is roughly POV. As far as waiting for a consensus, I don't see a consensus taking place before each edit. You agree with me on some of this, so why keep challenging it? Pgc512 edit is because he openly does not like Drudge, so he reverted the edit without any reason besides not liking Drudge. And you edited it to interpret what you you want people to see, that names were not mentioned. Again, I can't believe that you don't see that as your interpretation. As far as edits, anyone who looks and can look at the history will quickly see that the edits are quick and sometimes rather POV. Yes I agree with the name call removal edits. Yes, I agree with the international reverting edits, but again, and I will again state, this article needs to be better. See points 1-4 of my original POV post (at the top of this section). --Maniwar (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
MANIWAR, YOU ARE CONTINUALLY MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT ME. As anyone can plainly see, I deleted the quote because it gave the impression that ALL family members were against Cindy. I answered your accusation about being a Salon-lover/Drudge-hater above in this section. Why did you not read that and respond? Pgc512 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Pgc512, my apologies in that I did not see your above post. Now that I have, to comment, you, like anyone else, can go back and see that you deleted it because you did not like the Drudge source...the history speaks for itself. You also indicated that you would delete it if Drudge was the only source, again, anyone can go back and read what you wrote, therefore I am not making false accusations. The fact that you left the Salon quote in there an made negative statements about Drudge points out your agenda. You did however fail to notice that there were other sources included when you made your deletion. Again, I am only stating what you said and what you did and not fabricating anything. --Maniwar (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Maniwar, thanks for your response. I will say it one more time: I deleted the quote because it gave the false impression that ALL family members were against Cindy. What part of that sentence do you not understand? I don't like Drudge, but I am not at all sure that I even knew he was the source at the time. My Drudge comments came later. I still don't know what the Salon quote you are talking about. You may have me mixed up with someone else. Please try to be more careful. Thanks. Pgc512 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


We should delete the POV tags. Any discussion? Pgc512 20:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been no attempt at addressing the points Maniwar began this section with and no attempt at addressing the POV in the article. Why should they be deleted? Durbinmj 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Purported POV issues have been addressed via consensus (every post has been responded to) or refuted. Are you reading the same "discussion" page we are? Badagnani 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading this part of the discussion page: "I inserted a POV tag and will call for mediation if anyone deletes it. Here are the reasons I inserted the tag and I would like to discuss: (1) The article is way too long and needs to be cleaned up, however the revert wars are too speedy on this article and instead of improving, people seem to revert. Thus, at this point cleanup is not allowed. (2) The article is definately missing a criticism section. There needs to be a 1-3 paragraph section on this to cut down on clicks for readers/researchers. The spinoff article on Criticism can then be referenced and people can go and read that article for the rest, but a small section is needed. It's amazing how quickly a critical mention is rerverted with many breaking the 3RR rule. Rather than delete, it should be improved and tweaked. (3) There is too much interpretation going on. For example see the conversation above about "Family" where many of Sheehan's family have spoken out against her. People are inserting interpretations and their opinions and removing what the article actually says to insert what they think it should. (4) I believe the timeline should be spun off into its own article allowing more information to be placed in the article (i.e. #2 above). I would really like to see much of this article condensed, cleaned up and be more bullet like. We don't need to journal her life, just hightlight and provide sources, references, etc. Also, a criticism section is definately needed and is missing in this article. I do agree that name calling needs to be left out and it needs to be clean, but all the same it needs to be allowed. What say all of you? --Maniwar (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)"
Please refresh my memory on what "consensus" was reached regarding these concerns. Durbinmj 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" and "shortening" are vague and no specifics were given; "dirtiness" or "length" do not constitute POV. The former criticism section (actually pro and con) was split off into a separate article via consensus (this has been addressed above; did you miss it again?); "too much interpretation" refers specifically and only to the qualification of the Quartarolo email, which two of three editors who opined on the matter found not to be a problem; the timeline of Camp Casey being spun off has already occurred, something to which I had earlier objected but nonetheless that was what happened. Three of four of these points do not deal with POV and the Quartarolo email was addressed earlier. Badagnani 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that your version of consensus is your sole opinion, Badagnani. Let's open the discussion to others before saying a consensus has been made. You are so defensive to changes being made to this article that you won't allow any suggestions to be discussed.
1. "The revert wars are too speedy on this article and instead of improving, people seem to revert. Thus, at this point cleanup is not allowed." -Maniwar
I attribute most of this to your constant defense of the current state of the article and your absolute refusal to changes.
2. "It's amazing how quickly a critical mention is rerverted with many breaking the 3RR rule. Rather than delete, it should be improved and tweaked." -Maniwar
Again, it's one person who is constantly defending the article in its current state and won't allow any revisions in any form.
3. "The main page needs to combine both good and bad. Perhaps a timeline of the events could be spun off to it's own article. This article needs much help, but the edit wars are frustrating. Go and look at another article of controversy like George Bush or Bill O'Reilly (the commentator) or Al Franken and you will see a better balance." -Maniwar
Seeing a pattern here? I think there are problems that are blocking revisions and forcing one person's POV into the article, thus the POV tag. Durbinmj 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this POV tag hinges on editors who strongly dislike Sheehan's actions against the Iraq War. Am I correct? Well, the "support and criticism" page covers this--in excruciating detail. All of that was originally in the Cindy Sheehan article proper but it was moved out by an editor with some very strong feelings on the matter (see the article's edit history). Still there are no specifics about problems with the text other than the deletion of "international" (refuted) and the qualification of the nameless signature on the Quartarolo email. If one of the criticisms is that the article depicts Sheehan in a consistently flattering light I would disagree with that. I work on editing many articles here at Wikipedia and I don't revert changes that I believe to improve articles. Most changes here over the past week or so, however, haven't been good, for reasons stated above. A brief summary of the "support and criticism" could be added but readers will find that information by clicking through to that page in any case. Badagnani 22:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, your assessment is incorrect! I've outlined my opinions above and stick to them. I do agree with Durbinmj on the issue that you are too involved in this article and that your opinion only matters. When an editor adds to this article, minust name calling and vandalism, you seem to be one of the first to change the wording. I'm not wanting to paint Cindy into a villain, but because you are too involved in this you are missing it. No consensus was reached and I would like to see more comments from people outside of us who have been opining in this POV section. I continue to insist that an abreaviated opposition/controversy/Anti section is needed in this article and the whole thing does not need to be spun off. However, the controversy section can build on it. Again, I refer you to all my previous comments. Maniwar (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific points

In my initial revision that did include the removal of the word international from the first paragraph I made several other revisions that were changed back but were never discussed. They were as follows:

1. Vacaville

The second paragraph under Sheehan’s campaign against the Iraq war quotes a Vacaville Reporter story with the exception of the quote "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said. Giving that paragraph the air of her being critical of the President when she wasn’t at the time.

  • Comment: That article contained criticism of Bush's war policies but also praise of Bush, which is already in the article: ". . .sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. . . I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." The quote you wished to add simply means that he was the catalyst for bringing the family back together, if only for a moment. She didn't mean that she was happy to be reunited with Bush, but with her family. Thus, the quote praising Bush that's already in the article is more appropriate. Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand she didn't refer to being happy to be reunited with President Bush. If the majority of the article is quoted I believe the quote shouldn't be excluded or else it does sway the reader towards her being critical of the President after the initial meeting rather than generally supportive like the quote portray's. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So we have one vote for adding the quote, one against and one no preference. How do we reach a concensus Badagnani? Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The other day, I finally read the full text of the article. While Cindy does state that she feels Bush is sorry and a man of faith, the line about bringing them together is only about bringing the Sheehans together and hardly an endorsement of Bush. More indicative of their attitude is:
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
So, while she apparently was unhappy, the family chose not to spend their time on those questions because they felt Casey would not have wanted that. As such, including the line about bringing the family together is not reflective of her attitude as quoted in the paper. She was critical of the President, chose not to express that to him and was glad that her family spent some time together. Including the quote gives the impression that she felt Bush brought the whole country together or gave the whole country happiness. --Habap 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2. National/International

Paragraph 6 under Sheehan’s campaign against the Iraq war says the attention given her was merely national in direct contradiction to the international reference we have been debating over the past week.

  • Fixed. Badagnani 03:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Camp Casey Opposition

3. Paragraph 7 refers to supporters of Cindy’s actions (I’m assuming this refers to Camp Casey mentioned in the paragraph before it) but critics of the Camp are not allowed, like the removal of the reference to the Larry Mattlage article.

  • Comment: Are you speaking of the Mattlage shotgun incident? Isn't that in the chronology? That was removed to a separate article (the chronology of Camp Casey); check that out and see: Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas#Week 2. Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it was removed to a separate article. That is why I said, "Paragraph 7 refers to supporters of Cindy’s actions....but critics of the Camp are not allowed, like the removal of the reference to the Larry Mattlage article. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this the paragraph with the Rosa Parks comparison? Doesn't it say in the next sentence that some critics have said that she had committed treason by opposing the Iraq War? That's a pretty strong statement in and of itself. The thing is, the first name (Yearwood) is given in order to give the source of the Rosa Parks comparison. The "treason" label has probably been used by various conserative media personalities, so it's hard to pick one. The source states that Bill O'Reilly called her activities treasonous, so why not just add "such as Bill O'Reilly" and then you'll have one supporter and one person against? Of course, the pro and con comments are largely in the separate article for pro and con. Badagnani 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The section refers to Camp Casey and you have a quote comparing her to Rosa Parks in regards to the camp. Why is there a statement that she had committed treason by opposing the Iraq War instead of something critical of the camp itself like the supportive statement is? According to a correction made on SFgate.com, "O'Reilly referred on his Aug. 9 TV show to support for Sheehan on an antiwar Web site and said: "I think Ms. Sheehan bears some responsibility for [the Web site's content] and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." On the next day's show, he said: "I said some families who also lost loved ones in Iraq believe what she's doing borders on treason."" Durbinmj 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If by "critical of the camp itself" you mean the actions of locals Larry Mattlage or Larry Northern, I don't know if their actions (shotgun blast and cemetery drive-by, respectively) would be the most elegant expressions. A further argument is, do articles on all anti-war activists from all historical periods necessarily have a 50/50 mix of "for" and "against"? Possibly the only way to stick to the facts and avoid injecting the opinions of every tom, dick, and harry is to omit the Parks reference (I'm not sure how widespread that was) entirely. The original reason for its inclusion (I'm not the one who put it in) was probably the equivalence of both being ordinary women who did something that others may have wanted to do but were too scared, opposing a powerful system with an act of stubbornness and refusal, risking all the backlash that we're still seeing today (even in the face of the war's increasing domestic unpopularity). Badagnani 04:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am all for the complete removal of this paragraph. The first sentence is what we are currently discussing, the second sentence already has promenence in the opening paragraph of the article and the third has very poor citation. Durbinmj 05:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Chretien

4. Paragraph 12 is in the wrong tense. I think the sentence should read; “Sheehan, however, backed Green Party candidate Todd Chretien in that election.”

  • Comment: What is wrong with the tense? His website says that the election is coming up this November. Badagnani 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, a consensus has been reached. I was mistaken and thought the election was in February. I apologize. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Dead link

5. I deleted link 34, next to President Bush’s quote, and added a citeneeded tag because it’s a dead link and needs to be updated.

6. Congressional Support

6. The section under U.S. Congress incorrectly quotes a letter signed by 16 Democratic Congressmen. It says, “calling on Bush to ensure that no one will be arrested for having a peaceful demonstration” when even the article cited merely mentions “We also request that you help ensure that Ms. Sheehan and her colleagues are not arrested as long as they continue to wait for a meeting with you at their location in the peaceable and legal manner that they have maintained thus far.” That’s hardly a blanket calling of no arrests whatsoever.

My recollection is that the "no arrests at all" came from a Sheehan site. Since the actual letter doesn't say that, we should stick to the actual letter instead of someone else's interpretation of the letter. --Habap 13:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

7. McCain

7. Under the section September - December 2005 the quote of Senator McCain stating he was misled by Bring Them Home Now representatives to believe he was meeting with his own constituents and was blindsided by the Sheehan media circus was removed.

8. SOTU lawsuit

8. Paragraph 2 under State of the Union Speech, the sentence “Sheehan later declared that she intends to file a lawsuit” was changed from ““Sheehan later declared that she intends to file a lawsuit but as of yet has not.”

  • Comment: If cited from a reputable source that she has not done so. Badagnani 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard of a lawsuit? I would think that would make some sort of news. How can you cite a negative? Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"but as of yet has not" is the unreferenced opinion of one wikipedia editor. In any case, I don't think it belongs in the article. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What opinion? Is there a lawsuit? I have not seen any news coverage of a lawsuit. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How would I know if there is a lawsuit? I don't know one way or the other. All you are saying is that YOU have not heard of a lawsuit - i.e., your own "original research". Pgc512 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If there was a lawsuit, it would have been in the news. To say that there is no lawsuit is not OR. If he said something like, "but there are no grounds for a lawsuit", that would be OR. However, I do agree that "but as of yet has not" is not useful in the article. If she does file a suit, we can add that at that time. --Habap 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

9. Fasting

9. Paragraph 5 under 2006 activism the sentence “Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies” was reverted from “Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks, smoothies and ice cream.”

  • Comment: If cited from a reputable source. I haven't seen an ice cream reference in news media other than on some blog of someone who said they saw her eating ice cream. Maybe it was sorbet? Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Check her website. And it looks like we need to add coffee to the list as well. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
She says she had a drink on a trip made with coffee and ice cream because she could not find a smoothie. It would be silly to add it. This article is not a list of the foods she consumed during her fast. By the way, it is very dangerous just to fast on water alone, especially if you are traveling, etc.. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's important to mention the fast in the article, it's important to mention her version of the fast vs the health community's. From the online medical dictionary published at the Dept. of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle: fasting-Abstaining from all food. food- 1. What is fed upon; that which goes to support life by being received within, and assimilated by, the organism of an animal or a plant; nutriment; aliment; especially, what is eaten by animals for nourishment.

In a physiological sense, true aliment is to be distinguished as that portion of the food which is capable of being digested and absorbed into the blood, thus furnishing nourishment, in distinction from the indigestible matter which passes out through the alimentary canal as faeces.

Foods are divided into two main groups: nitrogenous, or proteid, foods, i.e, those which contain nitrogen, and nonnitrogenous, i.e, those which do not contain nitrogen. The latter group embraces the fats and carbohydrates, which collectively are sometimes termed heat producers or respiratory foods, since by oxidation in the body they especially subserve the production of heat. The proteids, on the other hand, are known as plastic foods or tissue formers, since no tissue can be formed without them. These latter terms, however, are misleading, since proteid foods may also give rise to heat both directly and indirectly, and the fats and carbohydrates are useful in other ways than in producing heat.

2. Anything that instructs the intellect, excites the feelings, or molds habits of character; that which nourishes. "This may prove food to my displeasure." (Shak) "In this moment there is life and food For future years." (Wordsworth)

Food is often used adjectively or in self-explaining compounds, as in food fish or food-fish, food supply. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody adds this deinition to the article. Heyhey ...

Anyway, it would distort the facts to make your change Durbinmj] since all we know is that, out of necessity, she made one coffee-ice-cream exception. It doesn't sound like she was on a coffee-ice-cream diet, but your change would make it sound like it. Pgc512 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "facts" are she was claiming to be fasting. The sentence in the article is incomplete. Like I said before, if it's important to mention the fast in the article, it's important to mention her version of the fast vs the health community's. A casual reader will assume a fast is no food whatsoever. However, her version is different and I think if it's important to mention the fast, it's important to list her version in its entirety not just half of the exceptions she made. Durbinmj 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess the intent of the edit is to shed doubt on the sincerity of the fast. Whatever the case, as it is sourced from Sheehan herself, it might be fair to add that she restricted herself to water and other liquid foods, with the exception of one instance where she had coffee with dissolved ice cream. It seems a minor point. As the ice cream would hae dissolved in the hot coffee, it would thus still qualify as a "liquid food" in the same way that many people add (non-iced) cream to their coffee. Badagnani 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good guess but the intent of the edit is to have the article be factual. I would be all for changing the sentence to "she restricted herself to water and other liquid foods." But I would insist that a citation be added to list all of the liquid foods that the fast included for clarification of her version of a fast vs. everyone else's assumed definition of a fast. Durbinmj 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur with Durbinmj here. When they announced the fast, I had the impression that they wouldn't be eating, since that's normally what people think of when they speak of a fast. The fact that fasting is dangerous to your health is what gives it such impact - that would be, Sheehan is so concerned she is risking her life to get the message out. The simple fact of the matter is that she was only symbolic in her fasting and that ought to be in the article. --Habap 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think saying " but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies " is sufficient to get out the information that it was not a full-tilt water-only fast. Even Gandhi had a little orange juice during his fasts I believe. Anyway, it looks like to add the coffee-ice-cream part, it would have to be a long qualified sentence such as: "And once during a trip where she couldn't get the blended juice/smoothies, she resorted to the closest thing available: a drink made with coffee and dissolved ice cream". But why make such a mess out of the article for such a small point? Pgc512 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Check out Ghandi's article, specifically under the Freedom and partition of India section. "Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice." (emphasis added) Durbinmj 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was intended as a juice fast. Badagnani 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
She didn't specify it as such, "...some, like me, will be fasting for a specified time. My fast will begin on 7/04 and end on the last day of Camp Casey: 09/02." Durbinmj 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"Some of us will be fasting completely until the troops come home; some will be on liquids only until the troops come home; some will fast for 2 weeks, 2 days; or like me, until at least September 21st."[7] I suppose she was one of the people "on liquids only." Badagnani 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"...some will be on liquids only until the troops come home..." Is she still fasting or did she end her fast on 9/21? Durbinmj 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The Troops Home Fast website says that it ended September 21, but that some people are fasting in solidarity every Wednesday, or however long they choose, in various other parts of the world. [8] Badagnani 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Cindy Sheehan said, "...some, like me, will be fasting for a specified time. My fast will begin on 7/04 and end on the last day of Camp Casey: 09/02." She also said, "...or like me, until at least September 21st." So according to her she ended on either September 2nd or 21st. The only mention of her on the codepink website is under 'other fasters' and not under the 'List of Long-Term Fasters'. Is she continuing to fast on a limited basis? If so, what are the current terms of her fast? How does this relate to the mention of the fast in the article? Durbinmj 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By these standards, maybe I should post on my user page that I plan on fasting every night from midnight until dawn? --Habap 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you need a source about the fact that Cindy Sheehan was really fasting, how about michelle Malkin-Vent. As somone who has fasted smoothies does not constitute a fast, it could be considered a diet.Decato 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Crawford

10. Paragraph 7 under the same section had the sentence “Although there are no plans for the City of Crawford, Texas to accept the donation nor create a Casey Sheehan Memorial Peace Park.”

  • Comment: If cited from a reputable source. But would the city need to *accept* it if it were on privately owned land? Badagnani 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article says "Sheehan intends to donate the land to the City of Crawford." That would not make it private land. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball speculating on whether they will or will not accept the land is inappropriate. If they can be cited as "not having plans to accept it", then it is valid, otherwise, it is simple speculation and probe to POV. Why don't we leave the reaction of the town until she actually does attempt to donate it? --Habap 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You may be right. According to this website it sounds like they would probably take the land as a donation just to get rid of her, but I really don't think there will be a memorial. I'm working on a citation of the city official's plans if the land or a memorial is offered by Sheehan. I do think it would be worth adding a mention on how she had to obtain the land secretly and the previous land owners were misled[9]. Durbinmj 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

11. Memoir

11. Paragraph 8 under the same section was reverted back to future tense when I changed it to “Sheehan released her memoir on September 19, 2006…”

  • Comment: That seems to be a good call. Fixed. Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I have said before, I made several changes and they were all reverted back. The only discussion was regarding the removal of the word international in paragraph 1. Also, like I have said in the past, some are so defensive to changes being made to this article that they won't allow any changes to be discussed before reverts or in most cases very extensive discussion before changes can be made. Durbinmj 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A short summary of the support and criticism is OK with me as long as it is SHORT and unbiased. Pgc512 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here, here Pgc512...but that would only be a start. The 3RR rule needs to be followed by all, and the other issues address in my original post. This article is far from being a good article. --Maniwar (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems fine to me, except for POV tag. What I am talking about is a few sentences and a link to the separate criticism/support article. She lost her son in the war. She has protested that war. She galvanized support against the war. That should be the main focus here. Pgc512 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Developing Consensus

This is an outrage!!! What "concensus" came up with the edits you just made Badagnani? How is it that my edits get immediately removed, I add them here for discussion and you, and only you, get to cherry-pick the edits you wish to make to the actual article? Why is it that some of my edits get immediately added and the others must have citation or you ignore them completely? You are not the sole owner of this article. If you require "concensus" on edits and the rest of us are playing by those rules, I don't think it is too much to ask that you play by them as well. Durbinmj 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would try to avoid unnecessary bluster. The thing is, very few editors have really been contributing to the discussion of these specific points (maybe they don't have the patience) and we agree on these edits. These edits are small and noncontroversial. The problem is, the previous edit had about 12 things changed all at once, and I did not agree with some of them (disagreements stated above), hence the revert. Finally, my edits were made one by one, each with a careful edit summary, so that they can be reverted individually if an editor does not agree with them. Badagnani 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite upset that you are editing in a manner that blocks others from contributing. You still seem to have the mentality that you somehow own this article and only your edits are acceptable. Thus the necessary "bluster." There are two others that are contributing to this discussion in a very active way, Maniwar and Pgc512. Why is it that your edits are "small and noncontroversial" but my edits are complicated because I choose to edit all at once to avoid several small edits in the history. What exactly constitutes the necessity for a revert in your mind? Is it only when you do not agree with them? Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits I didn't address are ones that need further research and which I didn't think it proper to answer off the top of my head. At least you could show some courtesy rather than *shouting* (would that be possible?) as I have taken a lot of time to discuss your proposals with you. Badagnani 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, I am quite upset at your hypocrisy and your blocking of any edits you do not approve, thus the shouting. I'm sorry I have taken so much of your precious time.... Durbinmj 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to make a correction, I do not and have not contributed much to this article. I can only remember doing one, possibly two edits to this article. However, I agree that there is no consensus and that Badagnani seemingly is monopolizing this article. --Maniwar (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You are exactly right, and when I commented on your contributions I was referring to the discussion and not the article itself. Badagnani said "very few editors have really been contributing to the discussion of these specific points" but I was trying to tell him me, you, him and Pgc512 are all active, not to mention others occasionally, and shouldn't be ignored or blocked from editing the article. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No editor is perfect of course, but I think Badagnani is doing a good job maintaining the intrgrity of this page. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with PGC here. As I was reading through the specific points, I was glad that there was agreement from the two of you on some of them. I saw no reason for Badagnani not to make the edits that both parties agreed upon. Should it be "all or nothing"? I think that we start from things we can all agree on as valuable edits (like the ones about using the correct tense) and then figure out which edits are disputed and work on resolving them one at a time. --Habap 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You say, "Should it be "all or nothing"?" Badagnani says yes. I initally said I made several other revisions that were changed back but were never discussed. The problem is that no changes are allowed to this article unless Badagnani agrees with them and if they are too much for him to go through all at once he says, "The problem is, the previous edit had about 12 things changed all at once, and I did not agree with some of them (disagreements stated above), hence the revert." (emphasis added) And he changes everything back without discussion or concern of agreement. Some of my changes were merely grammatical but because he didn't agree with the first one out of the box, my entire revision was reverted without regards to others or grammar. Wikipedia does not work this way. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is the Wikipedia works. Including several content changes in the same edit as grammatical corrections is like a Congress adding an amendment to build a bridge in his District to a normal funding bill. If you separate grammatical corrections, which are inherently non-controversial, from content changes, it makes it far easier to act on as editors. That way, we don't have to throw the baby (grammatical corrections) out with the bath water (content changes that might be controversial). --Habap 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What doesn't work is one person blocking edits that do not reflect their POV. In the past, when I have done small edits separately, I have received communications on my talk page asking me to combine my edits into one edit from numerous admin. You will see the same on Badagnani's talk page. I thought that was the way it's done. Durbinmj 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Who's implying that another editor is editing due to POV? We're trying to ensure that the article doesn't express a POV. The editing style (specifically as regards number of distinct edits per "save") is a judgement call and those commenting admins don't express the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia editing practice. Badagnani 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not implying. You show no regards to POV in your actions. I suggest you read Help:Show preview. Pay close attention to the part that says "It is strongly recommended that you use [the Show Preview button] prior to saving...It also prevents the need for multiple saves. Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history." Durbinmj 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)