Talk:Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 NPOV Dispute 2 Uh 3 External Links need fleshing out. 4 Criticism of the critics? 5 Rhetoric section

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I placed a NPOV dispute tag because I notice that all commentary by "Media Personalities" is negative. Certainly there have been some media personalities who have been supportive of her. Why aren't they given a subsection of their own in the "Supportive" section? And there are certainly some parents of soldiers who died in Iraq who are supportive of Cindy Sheehan. Why aren't they given a subsection of their own in the "Supportive" section? If you look at the layout of the article, you see that at least 70% of the article highlights those who are critical of Cindy Sheehan. This doesn't seem to me to be a balanced and NPOV representation of this topic. -- Andrew Parodi 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if there "certainly" are supportive examples, why dont you supply them ?!

I'm working on several other articles at the moment. All I have time for with this one is to note that it seems biased against Cindy Sheehan. Hopefully someone else can make it more NPOV. -- Andrew Parodi 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are her comments about our soldiers "raping" and "killing" innocent Iraqis in "cold blood". This woman makes me seethe with anger.

Is it her fault that soldiers carry out war crimes? Or are you simply implying that it's our duty as patriotic Americans to ignore and cover-up those war crimes? Or do you mean that there have not been any war crimes in Iraq? Macsenrut 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I believe that this article, as well as most political articles on this website tend to lean to the left. As far as I'm concerned, this disgraceful excuse for a human being doesn't even deserve her own article. This is what she selfishly strives for: individual fame. All she is doing now is dishonoring her son, and every other serviceman who is currently fighting for her freedom to be such a media whore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.213.168 (talk • contribs)

I think you missed the point. Whether or not she is in it for the fame, her messege along with many others is that these soldiers are not fighting for our freedom, they are fighting for a few peoples personal agenda. The Iraqis never set foot on our soil, they have not, nor ever have imposed on our freedom. —Ĝ

Putting the last comment and its logical fallacies aside as it has nothing to do with the dispute, I think it's also important to notice that POV language is used in Cindy's favor when discussing her detractors:

 - "A closer examination of the original interview shows that Drudge's story had involved selective editing."
 - "Limbaugh did not explain what about Sheehan's story he believed to be false, nor did he provide any evidence to support his claim."
 - "Many Sheehan supporters (including Phil Donahue) have rebuffed specific criticisms." (Doesn't this sound a little weaselish? Especially without explaining what those criticisms were and how they were rebuffed?)

All in all, these comments seem to be phrased with the intention of discrediting Sheehan's critics through weaseliness. --Jsrduck 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I noticed the same examples you seem concerned with, so it's obviously not just me. The statements are intentionally vague, and well, weasly. It is clearly an attempt at inserting POV without making it obvious, which frankly, pisses me off much more than openly inserting one's POV. I will give someone else a chance to edit the article, but absent that I will remove the cruft in a few days.70.115.211.122 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Nunya

I just thought it was funny what she said about depleted uranium shells being used in Iraq. I don't think she knows what depleted Uranium is. I mean our tanks use depleted uranium as armor. Essentially our country is being contaminated too because the ammo and vehicles are constructed here. I don't know I'm a science buff and I thought it was funny. Youknowthatoneguy 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the depleted uranium armor that is problem, it's the ammo. So you are correct that the stuff is harmless, until it's fired at high velocity and disintegrates into the atmosphere. On the more general note of the articles NPOV status all I can say is that it's a page about people who are biased so it can hardly be unbiased itself. Macsenrut 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh

Why is this its own article? This is hardly encyclopedic material, unless as a portion of the Cindy Sheehan entry.

• This has it's own article because there's so much information that it would totally crowd her main article. There is way too much legit criticism of Sheehan to simply trim all of it down into a couple of paragraphs. Omitting said information would pretty much turn her main article into a biased fan page. --Rambone (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should notice that the website Moveon.org funneled more than 230 million dollars of PAC money to democratic canidates in the last round of elections. Hardly unbiased or a good source of information

Retard's observation, and totally out of place here. Nonetheless, MoveOn supports candidates who want to move on past 9-11, and many Dems are promising this. No Republicans are promising this, prefering to waste their terms with unpassable political horseshit.<spetsz>.72.76.248.151 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

--To the poster of the above comment: MoveOn.org was founded by a Clinton supporter during the 1998 Impeachment hearings, and it's name pertains to the same (moving past the impeachment, etc). 9/11 had nothing to do with it. So, please, the next time you want to post your commie bullshit about ignoring the slaughter of American civilians by foreign radicals, at least try to get the obvious facts correct, so you don't look like a total oxygen thief.

-TDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This really doesn't need to be its own article. These criticisms are all perfectly at home in the main article about this woman. DougRWms 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links need fleshing out.

Whilst there is a good number of external links to both pro and anti- Sheehan articles/sites etc., only one is recorded in the final "external links section" - a pro-Sheehan media matters piece. Should I add the other links included in the article to this section and try and divide it into "pro/anti" listings? Edders 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the critics?

Why not a section for "criticism of the critics criticizing the critics"? Redundant section deleted. Robocracy 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of critics is essentially support, so it most likely should be moved to support. It shouldn't go under the "criticism" section. Youknowthatoneguy 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to "support" section. Blue403 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetoric section

This is basically a glorified "Quotes" section, which is to be avoided in Wikipedia's articles. The quotes should either be moved to "support" or "criticism" and accompanied by comments on them, or the section should be removed altogether or modified.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)