Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 1

message: If there's a way to put in the fact that Cindy Sheehan is an anti-semite, and believes that Mossad (!) was actually behind the 9/11 attacks without getting the NPOV folks in a knot, that would be great
: Were you planning to find some evidence to support this claim or just going to slip an unsubstantiated claim off the wing-nut blogosphere in the hope it was true?--Gorgonzilla 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Can we really quote Drudge?
He's a well-known conservative that is known for spinning all anti-Bush quotes to make the other side look bad; in this case, making Cindy look like a "flip-flopper".
: Somebody obviously did (not me); I just edited the quote to make it NPOV, in particular removing the phrsae "flip-flopper" which even Druudge didn't use. However, Drudge usually tries to make himself part of any story that damages "the other side".. I think it's clear in this case that he's trying to spin it his way and I see no harm to the truth in making this apparent.--CSTAR 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first quote should come from Mrs. Sheehan herself.  NPOV should defer to the original subject, no? Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 16:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with me.  I'm just editing to balance a concerted effort among some anon editors to only include Drudge's distorted quoting of Sheehan.  Whether or not Drudge is quoted is only of minor concern to me at least. --CSTAR 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drudge 

message: Geeh that picture could like like anybody's family reunion. Is that really G.W. Bush somewhere in there? This picture is useless, but more to the point it probably is a copyright violation since it appears to be pilfered from the web.--CSTAR 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture 

message: Anon user:70.33.80.97 has apparently violated the Wikipedia 3 revert rule [] and should be blocked.  As an admin I can do this, but will refrain from doing this in good faith, since I have edited the article (and the WP rules on this are very byzantine). If this antisocial behavior continues, I urge other admins to block this user.--CSTAR 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR violation 

message: Interesting article.  I have taken liberty to move some of the sections into chronological order, format some items, correct some spelling and change some things to correct some gramatical errors.  We need to find references to credible news sources for some of the sections.  I will devote some time to look for those later.  Kgrr 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: I strongly disagree with the removal of important events in the course of this story from this article (because it might offend your political views).  Please restore the following three sections.  Kgrr 16:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of important events 

message: -	On 11 August 2005 President George W. Bush, instead of having Cindy Sheehan arrested, he spoke to reporters at his ranch in Crawford, TX and said the following:
-
-	:"I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so." 
-
: The entire Bush quote you include above is in the article,  the last time I checked.  The only item that is deleted is the phrase instead of having Cindy Sheehan arrested. There are a lot of "potential occurrences" that can be placed in there, sort of like the potential men in the fictional Wyman's doorway (Quine). We could for instance say  something such as On 11 August 2005 President George W. Bush, instead of taking his chainsaw and going on a rampage cutting off the heads of protestors, spoke to reporters.....--CSTAR 16:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: President George W. Bush News Conference

message: I believe this open letter from Mrs. Sheehan to President Bush is also significant.  However, I am afraid that the revisionist CSTAR will remove a reference to it.  How should I proceed??  Kgrr 16:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Letter to Mr Bush 

message: : Whoa, revisionist? Please, sir: (primo) I don't think you know what side I'm on. (secondo) I made the deletions to make the article more to the point and useful as a source of information. I will not delete any reference that is legitimately connected to the story and certainly not the one you cite above.  I deleted the section on the threat of arrest, because as far as I know, no arrest occurred on the day it was predicted. --CSTAR 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I put back in the threat of arrest (in a modified form, suitable to the context in which I placed it). However, I think one should also try to present the article in a dispassionate form here on WP, however much sympathy one may feel for Ms Sheehan. If you think chronolgical order is important, start a section called "Chronology".--CSTAR 17:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to removal of events 

message: This seems like a good and factual article.  I usually ignore the more controversial and current event topics on Wikipedia, but this does look pretty good.  Congradulations to all the good-faith editors. JesseW 21:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work, everyone 

message: Why was the critics section removed?  The fact that there are critics is a fact, uncontroversial, and if stated as and assertion "there are critics, these are the critics and this is what they said" has little bearing on any argument either way.--CSTAR 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: The photo sheehan.jpg is copyrighted as follows:
© 2000-2002 North Carolina Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the NC IMC
It cannot be used according to the upload policy which states:
Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files will be deleted  Kgrr 12:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kgrr - as I'm sure you may have noticed, this is one of many pictures posted in comments on that IndyMedia site. Indymedia can only claim copyright on that which is not contributed by other authors. For all you know, the author or a friend thereof uploaded the picture to en.wiki with the intention that it be distributed as PD. The author of the picture's email address is right there, jeff@paterson.net. If you want to be helpful on WP, you can:
#put  on the image and add it to WP:CP
#send a form letter to Mr. Paterson asking if he gives permission under GFDL or PD.
#If so or not, document the permission or lack thereof.
In the end, that's a better result for Wikipedia than just deleting the content. -Kwh 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
KWH - I will make an effort to e-mail Jeff Patterson and ask him about the copyright. Kgrr 12:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Copyrighted Photo 

message: The critics need to have sources that are showing that they are actual criticising Sheehan, rather than people in general.  Right now, the first paragraph in this section does not have sources for any of those listed.  See below:
:"Sheehan has been criticized by Matt Drudge, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Christopher Hitchens, one of Casey's paternal aunts, and a few parents of other soldiers killed in Iraq."
Primarily for my reference, here is the definition from Merriam-Webster...
:"1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances  2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment"
It seems to me that 1.a is the definition to use, and that in defining a person as a critic, it makes sense to find a source that shows this.  The names of people should not be included until that evidence is found. Americanus 12:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: If you want to discuss POV .. let's do it here. Kgrr 12:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's legitimate to include a claim as fact if there is no competing claim of equal or greater veracity. 705 is put forth as an 'official count' by the organizers so I would say unless someone else is there counting heads (and some blogger saying "I drove by and I saw like 100 people" doesn't cut it) it should stand. But I would point out something interesting; according to Wikipedia, the 2000 Census population of Crawford, Texas is 705. To me that seems an odd coincidence, and makes me wonder if someone said "gee, we've doubled the population of this town" and the figure might have come out of that. Just speculation. -Kwh 13:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like this POV in the article: "12 August 2005 Camp Casey protest draws hundreds of supporters, with a constant presence of just over 100.[24][25][26]."  I gave you three references for the fact that there are over 700 protesters there.  Please read them.  In addition there are about 100 pro-bush protesters there.  I gave you a reference for the count of the support our troops camp as well. (This may be the 100 you are referring to).   Please restore the cronology with the correct numbers.   Kgrr 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to Sheehan on "Democracy Now" and it was my impression that her statement meant that over the course of the day 700 people had come through (maybe spending an hour or two at a time), not that there were that many people based at the camp.  People are drifting in from all around the country, but most don't have the committment that Sheehan has to sticking it out day and night by the side of the road.  My reading of the articles (I read a lot of them from different sources) was that the permanent presence was just over 100 but that hundreds of people came in and out of the camp.  If you've got the sources and they're clear about this, then you can feel free to change it back.  Whatever appears in the article should be absolutely accurate and factual.  Don't assume the edit lowering the crowd estimate was due to POV, as I'm the one who made it and doesn't have anything to do with my personal POV, just making sure (per Wikipedia principles) that the numbers of permanent/temporary visitors to Camp Casey are stated factually.  Badagnani 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on this; if it's made clear that not all the folks are overnighting there (which I had assumed from the way the previous version was worded) then the 700 figure should be used, though all of the three sources given are anti-war ones and have their own POV.  I think I had changed 700 to "hundreds" because one of the "mainstream" media sources (not cited by you) gave a figure of 500.  I'd like to ask if you might consider kindly laying off the POV insinuations about my edits; you don't know what my POV is and it doesn't come across as very nice.  I've listened to Amy every day for years (even though that doesn't matter) ;-)  Badagnani 00:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy 

message: "CINDY SHEEHAN: We had over 700 people come through our camp yesterday, and we are expecting thousands this weekend. It is just so incredibly amazing to me. I think people in America just needed a way to stand up and have their voices count. And for some reason, this is a way for them to do it."
"Before we get to the less than negative things that are happening out at Camp Casey and in the world at large today, over 700 people showed up at the Camp today."
There is plenty of proof ... and plenty of revisionists.  You might argue that the actual number reported is far less and simply remove a line.  Quote your "official" right-wing news source for your numbers instead of deleting facts as reported from Crawford, TX.  There may be a reason why the commercial media may not want the real numbers out.
:I think that it's legitimate to include a claim as fact if there is no competing claim of equal or greater veracity. 705 is put forth as an 'official count' by the organizers so I would say unless someone else is there counting heads (and some blogger saying "I drove by and I saw like 100 people" doesn't cut it) it should stand. But I would point out something interesting; according to Wikipedia, the 2000 Census population of Crawford, Texas is 705. To me that seems an odd coincidence, and makes me wonder if someone said "gee, we've doubled the population of this town" and the figure might have come out of that. Just speculation. -Kwh 13:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like this POV in the article: "12 August 2005 Camp Casey protest draws hundreds of supporters, with a constant presence of just over 100.[24][25][26]."  I gave you three references for the fact that there are over 700 protesters there.  Please read them.  In addition there are about 100 pro-bush protesters there.  I gave you a reference for the count of the support our troops camp as well. (This may be the 100 you are referring to).   Please restore the cronology with the correct numbers.   Kgrr 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to Sheehan on "Democracy Now" and it was my impression that her statement meant that over the course of the day 700 people had come through (maybe spending an hour or two at a time), not that there were that many people based at the camp.  People are drifting in from all around the country, but most don't have the committment that Sheehan has to sticking it out day and night by the side of the road.  My reading of the articles (I read a lot of them from different sources) was that the permanent presence was just over 100 but that hundreds of people came in and out of the camp.  If you've got the sources and they're clear about this, then you can feel free to change it back.  Whatever appears in the article should be absolutely accurate and factual.  Don't assume the edit lowering the crowd estimate was due to POV, as I'm the one who made it and doesn't have anything to do with my personal POV, just making sure (per Wikipedia principles) that the numbers of permanent/temporary visitors to Camp Casey are stated factually.  Badagnani 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this; if it's made clear that not all the folks are overnighting there (which I had assumed from the way the previous version was worded) then the 700 figure should be used, though all of the three sources given are anti-war ones and have their own POV.  I think I had changed 700 to "hundreds" because one of the "mainstream" media sources (not cited by you) gave a figure of 500.  I'd like to ask if you might consider kindly laying off the POV insinuations about my edits; you don't know what my POV is and it doesn't come across as very nice.  I've listened to Amy every day for years (even though that doesn't matter) ;-)  Badagnani 00:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  700 at Camp 

message: I reverted an edit that supposedly included the "mission statement" of GSFP.  That wasn't the mission statement of that organization as can be seen from its website at the link www.gsfp.org ----CSTAR 16:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission statement 

message: As far a left goes, Fox News goes to the blame game. The blame game...."Some People Say..." As far as that little phrase goes, remember the words of Fox News. "Some People Say!" After hearing Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and John Gibson go after Cindy, Ms. Sheehan says Bill O'Reilly's Show is an "Obscenity to Humanity" and continuously retorts the right-wings smear campaign! Then Fox News gives a grieving mom gets a makeover. Picture this, Ms. Sheehan now she's a far-leftist, Michael Moore supportive, anti-war mom, who hypocritical crusade to get President Bush to force the U.S. troops come home so that the terrorist could win, that's ludicrous! Now c'mon, can't we get a right to protest outside (9 miles) of the Crawford ranch (to at least say President Bush) made a mistake. Oh, I forgot Fox News is the cheerleader for Bush and his people. Karl Rove is more important than Sheehan's protest.  LILVOKA 15 August 2005 12:13 (EST)--------Sorry I didn't catch it in time to sign! Thanks Eclipsed.
ummm.... So chopping out all of that POV -- are you saying that "Bill O'Reilly and others are criticising Sheehan"?  I think that's already in the article.  Also, please sign your comments. Eclipsed 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News Channel 

message: Unprotected, as no discussion on talk. All protection seems to be vandal related. Recommend quick-blocking of any vandalism for 1 day periods, without excessive warning --depending on the severtity of the vandalism. -St|eve 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: The article linked in the claim that Sheehan has been accused of anti-semitism does not actually make the charge, nor is it necessarily a notable claim. If the Israeli Embassy, a senior Israeli or Jewish politician or a leading Jewish figure or anti-anti-semitism campaigner made the charge it would be notable, same if it was made by a major named columnist or US politician. A wingnut publication with no real readership is not notable. Plus the article does not have the guts to call her an anti-semite directly, instead its the old trick of saying she 'associates' with unnamed anti-semites. --Gorgonzilla 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Sheehan appears to have been born in 1957, with most sources claiming she is 48 . --Viriditas  | Talk 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheehan's age 

message: :'"I’m not in favor of what she (Sheehan) is saying," Healy said. "But, I’m absolutely proud she has the right to say that. It’s really the triumph of our democracy, but I’m fearful the enemies will use it against us."' --- Natalie Healy 
The only thing that this comment shows is that Healy is experiencing fear; fear that something will happen somewhere, sometime, somereason, and in some way precipitated by Sheehan.
Healy speaks of an enemy although does not define it.  Fear of something unseen, undefinable.  She seems to be saying that she's afraid of fear or terror itself.  It could be that she is fearful of change from the status-quo and the uncertainty of what that change would be.
:'"...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."' 
Healy also points out that all Gold Star Families are do not agree with Sheehan.  I don't think that is implied anywhere, but if so, it would be okay to add that to the page on Gold Star families.
Americanus 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fear

message: The first section in criticism is now a refutation by Sheehan. That is not NPOV folks. Bizare thing is here that it seems to have got that way because right-wingers wanted to remove the now disproven 'flip flop' charge. As it is the section does not work even as POV since the reader is not told what Sheehan is reacting to. --Gorgonzilla 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited this down to just the quotes with verifiable sources.  Also put in chronological order. Americanus 11:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The O'Riely thing

message: Is this article inaccurate in stating that there was also a White House meeting between Bush and Sheehan?  http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971  Badagnani 03:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused about that too.  I removed that citation as it went with the Fort Lewis meeting.  I haven't read about a private White House meeting anywhere else. POV destroyer 03:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Please sign additions.  The Slate article does not say anything other than what has already been said in this article. Americanus 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  White House meeting? 

message: Just added stuff from the new slate article on her.  i left links on the page to the article, and to a david duke article i also referenced.
: Please sign additions.  The Slate article does not say anything other than what has already been said in this article. Americanus 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate 

message: Removing mention of the false attribution of comments by Drudge is not only POV it means the reader loses critical context for the rest of the story. When Sheehan is calling O'Reily a liar it is the repeat of the Drudge allegation she refers to. Just because Drudge and O'Reily are trying a different attack today does not mean that their previous attack is no longer notable. --Gorgonzilla 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Attribution 

message: I've seen most of the following sites before, and was hoping for some input on which ones might be appropirate or germaine to the article.
:*Iraqi Body Count - 23,589 fatalities, civilian only
:*Iraq Coalition Casualty Count - 2,056 fatalities -> 1,862  from USA
:*Body Count Comparison - one icon per death
:*Military Personnel Wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan - some graphic images of American soldiers
:* National Priorities Project - where our federal tax money is going
:*Cost of War to Taxpayers - with alternative uses for our money
Which is most worthwhile?
Americanus 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links for Comment Before Adding 

message: I notice that the criticism section (including excruciating detail from every Tom, Dick, and Rush) has grown quite large--nearly half the length of the entire article.  In an effort to emulate FOX and be fair and balanced, should we not add a section including five or six long testimonials from those praising what Sheehan is doing, stating its importance to contributing to an end to the war and the troops coming home, etc.?
This isn't meant to be funny; the article, like all on WP, should be encyclopedic and free from bias, thus balanced in terms of who is praising and who is criticizing.  Those with the power (i.e. holding the microphones) don't necessarily believe the same way as the public, a large percentage of whom seem to be behind Sheehan, if not so vocal about it.  I think there were about 1,600 vigils in support of Sheehan around these 50 states yesterday so someone out there isn't quite so critical of this grieving mother.  Badagnani 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point.  Some articles have proponents and opponents.  The article should definitely have some good proponent sources.  Very well known and respected people.  Americanus 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there should be some comments from critics of the critics. For example media matters has exposed Drudge as an outright liar, crooks and liars has documented numerous ridiculous chages (including his latest bizare claim that Sheehan's story is fake, is Rush loosing it?). Salon has an article on the attacks, there are articles in several of the papers. Much of the criticism stands for itself, Limbaugh and O'Reily were both chickenhawk draft-dodgers and they are busy sliming the mother of a fallen soldier. --Gorgonzilla 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism/praise 

message: :Prominent Iraqi blogger, Salam Pax, wrote an open letter...
The link to this "Salam Pax Quote" , is on the site of a different blogger, "Iraq The Model".  Am I missing something completely dumb, or is this quote misattributed to the wrong blogger? --Bletch 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salam Pax "Quote" 

message: POV 'Destroyer' has turned to outright vandalism. He removed the context for a quote saying he 'did not see the need for it' yet does not seem to want to debate the change. In fact he has reverted three times now giving a completely misleading explanation of the edit. I find the title 'POV Destroyer' to be insulting and arrogant, it essentially accuses other wikipedians of bad faith when they oppose his highly POV edits. He appears to be intent on pursuing a partisan political agenda here.--Gorgonzilla 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eleemosynary, you state "three examples follow".  I recommend that you reword/style that by simply providing the specific attributions.  For example, on the Comedy Central's Jon Stewart's Daily Show I believe Wednesday August 17 (need a fact check) he showed about four rapid fire attacks on Sheehan's credibility by the opposition that looked like they were taken off FOX news channel.  In any case "three examples follow" reads like a term paper. Kyle Andrew Brown 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, "POV Destroyer,"  "vociferous by right-wing personalities" is not only non-POV, it's also far more accurate than the version to which you changed it.  Is it POV to call Drudge, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly "right wing"?  Of course not.  Is it POV to characterize their quoted statements (and other statements made in the media by Liddy, Horowitz, Barnes, et al. as "vociferous"?  It may not be pleasing to right-wing supporters, but it's not POV.  You are exhibiting a rather rightward bias in your edits.  And, contrary to your presumptuous and boorish handle, you are exhibiting a good deal of POV.  In short, remove the plank from your own eye.  I'll be watching your edits for further POV, and reverting them.
Eleemosynary
And I'm calling you out Gorgonzilla, you show me one example of a "POV edit" that I have done.  I have worked with others here to present just the facts on this topic.  You and other overt partisans on here seem to be the only ones who have a problem with me.  I think you need to read my quote.  It fits you perfectly. POV destroyer 11:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by POV Destroyer 

message: In this section it starts: "In another editorial" which should probably be reworded, because when the guests are on the program they are not usually described as giving editorials.Kyle Andrew Brown 03:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry King 

message: I deleted it because the back end server kept barfing on attempted updates, probably because the log was 114K. There is a link to the archive. I am trying to search the archive to copy the still relevant material back here. Trying the opposite way round simply wasn't working, the server kept giving edit conflicts because you were editing. Feel free to rescue anything. I stuck some subheads in to make parallel edits possible. --Gorgonzilla 14:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Archieve 

message: Yeah, about her personal life. Why is there ZERO mention of deleted per policy due to the fact she deleted per policy. Also, how she deleted per policy? And why she deleted per policy? I mean, why is there no section on her life prior to deleted per policy?
--Possibly to keep deleted per policy as a suffering mother in the wake of her son's death. Shame her son died, of course, but it would be nice if this article had more information about her life before she became an activist, rather than pretending that that's where her life began.
:Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post, thanks. The supposed divorce referenced above is an urban legend. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp  Badagnani 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headstone is mentioned here: Casey Sheehan. Badagnani 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is there no mention about her personal life? Sullynyflhi 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above story about a divorce when Casey was a youngster is an Internet hoax. They divorced in 2006 or 2007. Her personal life is not particularly notable, unless you are a gossip columnist. --Habap 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think her personal life is the entire reason why she gained notoriety. I think when she deleted per policy  is notable enough for inclusion in an article this long, especially since (if I remember right) it played into why she decided to stop being a part of the peace anti-war movement, at least in May '07. If it's not mentioned here simply because it would "tarnish her image", well there are plenty of people who deleted per policy. --User:anonymous surfer 79.72.94.237 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Under the section Chronology of activism > 2006 activism, I think a change is needed to the sentence that includes the phrase; "fantasies of suicide and revenge against President Bush" to better reflect her fantasy of time travel and intention of killing an infant George W. Bush. I believe this will better reflect her "fantasies" than a mere mention of revenge which really doesn't reflect the scope of her intentions. Durbinmj 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 2006 activism proposed for concensus 

message: removed:
  She is sometimes referred to by the media as the "Peace Mom".CBSNews.com:
  'Peace Mom' Hurt In Scuffle.
  Retrieved on September 25, 2006.
because it does not contribute to the article and only few news sources refer to her as 'Peace Mom.' --Maniwar (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of reverting this, but wonder, do they still refer to her that way or just as Cindy Sheehan? --Habap 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so quick to revert. It holds no relevance being placed in the first section. It is already mentioned in the main body and again, not all media considered her to be this. --Maniwar (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I only thought about reverting. I didn't do it because I wondered if the media (not just Sheehan herself, esp in her book title) actually still used it. I don't think that her detractors in the media have settled on any one name and the sentence doesn't state "she is always referred to by all media outlets as the Peace Mom", so the argument about whether it is all is not relevant. In a quick Google search, I only found references from 2005. --Habap 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed irrelevant sentence 

message: So, are the issues above resolved? I am still unsure as discussion simply seemed to stop on some issues while others are clearly resolved. If no one objects, I would like to remove the POV tag as it looks quite silly up there. (The neutrality of this POV_TAG is disputed.) --Habap 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should archive this "talk" page as well, because it's huge.  Badagnani 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hasn't everything she's done publicly since the Camp Casey protest been in an attempt to end the Iraq War?  I'm afraid I don't understand where this question comes from because all the sources confirm it.  What you're saying is comparable to saying that there isn't any proof that Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist.  You can do better than this.  Saying that she is (deleted per policy) seems POV to me; what is the proof for this?  Badagnani 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tannim, you're simply being ridiculous now. You've reduced your own argument to absurdity by claiming there is no sourcing for her being a anti-Iraq War activist. Please don't be petulant. If you wish to make constructive contributions, they will be welcome, but stomping for your feet and demanding that we do things your way will get you nowhere. --Habap 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Terrorist" is an vague, inflamatory way to demonize people.  For example, attacking and invading a country that posed no threat to us, causing the deaths of 100,000's of people, could be considered "terrorism".  But I am not going to try and add that to GWB's wiki article. Pgc512 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the controversy section needs to be developed with a one or two paragraph section rather than shooting readers off as pointed out, but I am leaning more towards removing the POV tags. I have gone back and re-read and see that it's not too bad an article and I see that Badagnani is not so quick to interpret things for the readers or revert other people's post which was one of the concerns. I leave it in your hands! --Maniwar (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pgc512, you are very very wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Terrorism is a legitimate term with fairly well-enough defined meaning. Check the wiki article since you are obviously confused. GWB can't be confused for a terrorist because he doesn't meet any of the qualifications for a terrorist. Terrorists, among other things, target civilians and act unlawfully. This obviously applies to groups such as Hezbollah, whereas by no stretch of the rational mind can it be applied to President Bush. If you tried, you'd be profoundly dishonest. Bush's Iraq policy does not target civilians, but war criminals. Civilians who have been killed in the Iraq war were never targeted by Bush's policy - the vast majority have been killed in suicide bombings, etc, by insurgents, who obviously WERE targeting civilians, qualifying them as terrorists. Don't contribute to wikipedia if you're unwilling to honestly confront facts.Jsrduck 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jsrduck, welcome to the discussion.  Maybe you didn't know about this?  Probably not, because it's not often covered in the media; this article is one of only a tiny handful about the subject.  I think the half life of this material, whose dust is covering Iraq now, is 4.5 billion years, and will certainly be something that is affecting and will affect civilians essentially forever.  This is the sort of thing Sheehan is concerned about and trying to stop.  Badagnani 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Badagnani. What you linked me to was not especially relevent to the conversation. Nobody is debating that war doesn't have side-effects, generally bad ones. We were debating the definition of terrorism - and if you're trying to respond to the point I made, and I'm not entirely sure you are, then you're suggesting that our military is deliberately targeting civilians with radioactive bullets. I don't think even the article you sent me to is suggesting that. All wars affect civilians. I'm hard pressed to think of one that doesn't. And if you're looking for proof that the war is harming civilians, I'm surprised you'd pick such a lame example (notice the lack of any mention of civilians actually harmed in that article. The article was written to warn of the potential danger). At any rate, that civilians are hurt as a byproduct of the war isn't sufficient to label Bush a terrorist. In any war, we expect civilians to be hurt as a byproduct. The US military's policy is to reduce civilian casualties (hence the article even exists). In order to qualify as a terrorist, the aggressor must target civilians, something Bush clearly has not done.Jsrduck 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Folks, discussion of the civilian costs of war and of whether Bush is a terrorist are not at all relevant to this discussion. Badagnani, please don't lead us off on a tangent. --Habap 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Tannim, you lost me there. What argument did I make? I do happen to think Hezbollah is terrorist group, and I would suppose that if you found a source, you could write "some consider Hezbollah a terrorist group". That discussion belongs on another page, though. --Habap 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "No sourcing" that she is an anti-war activist? The very first reference in this article is to a source titled "For Some, a Loss in Iraq Turns Into Antiwar Activism," (emphasis added), which describes Sheehan's anti-war activism. It is very clearly sourced. Eron 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Always nice to feel appreciated. --Habap 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag Redux 

message: Added weasel words tag due to the use of "It should be noted that...." "Some critics...." "it has been noted by observers...." "Rumors began spreading...." etc. See WP:AWW. Durbinmj 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  If the content of these sentences is correct, then perhaps the wording could be changed.  Badagnani 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not allowed. My revisions always get reverted....Durbinmj 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, let me remove this Revert Me note that was taped to your back.... --Habap 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Why do we have this, the section is only a sentence long, it seems pointless and looks like we're grasping for straws to make the article more interesting...
Pstanton 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an affirmative on the second part of your question. I do not know the answer to the first. After the meeting, Sheehan said that she now knows that Bush is a caring sincere person (paraphrase). I heard the interview on the radio one day. I was driving (four hour trip) and heard the her after the meeting Bush had with several mothers. I'm sure you could Google it. --Maniwar (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about her (deleted per policy) is simply wrong. Sheehan was married to Casey's father until recently and never deserted the family. She raised her son. It was simply an internet myth with no basis in fact. --Habap 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sheehan myths? 

message: This article is a mess.  Something needs to be done to stop the vandalism and the warnings, etc..  Those of you with more time and wiki experience - any ideas?  Pgc512 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a protect tag has been placed.  Jmlk17 11:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a Mess! 

message: If you go back to the article during that period of time, you'll see that it did include mention of the Feinstein thing. However, it isn't a particularly relevant point and doesn't belong in the article. --Habap 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Feinstein Thing 

message: Why is this the opener to the section on Sheehan's war activism? It does not follow logically that a Democrat is necessarily a peace advocate or an opponent of war. Sheehan's anti-war activism is not typical of all Democrats or an inherent quality to the Democratic platform. If Sheehan is simply showing her true Democratic colors in protesting the war, as the placement of this quote implies, why did she oppose the re-election of Democrat Dianne Feinstein in 2006, in favor of a Green Party candidate?
I'm not saying that this statement doesn't belong in the article - it's relevant to her opposition to GWB - but I think it is all wrong as the opening sentence in this section. Venicemenace 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sheehan has 'always been a Democrat'" 

message: I suggest we add a section giving examples of Cindy Sheehans hypocrisy.
1.  When protesting GITMO on Thursday, Sheehans (deleted per policy)  Fox News Nov 11
2.  Sheehans had spoken at ANSWER rallies (deleted per policy)  Associated Press
3.  Sheehans has (deleted per policy).  MichelleMalkin.com
4.  She is silent on (deleted per policy).  Vent
This is as relevent as her Anti Iraq liberation stand. Skypad 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheehan's Hypocrisy 

message: I have to wonder about the encyclopedic nature of the subject. It seems to me that she has done nothing worthy of recognition except for striving to gain it. Should we as Wikipedians be aiding this?
Without commenting on her politics, I cannot say that she is a particularly articulate, logical or consistent commentator on her chosen area. Her one-eyed bigotry is readily apparent, and I have to ask if whether by giving her so much attention we are aiding in a POV slant to our coverage of current events. --Pete 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable for being notable? 

message: I'm just wondering, is Cindy Sheehan married? ~ UBeR 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See August 12, 2005 entry at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas.  Maybe she's divorced now, not sure.  Badagnani 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read (here: ) that her war protests were the cause of her marriage ending. To be exact, she said, "she sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war", but it doesn't go into specifics. —MJCdetroit 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is divorced. As sources that came out today reported, her divorce was finalized some time ago: . DickClarkMises 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married? 

message: Under the references, links 37, 45, and 46 are broken. I'll leave it to an admin to fix them as I would prefer not to touch such a controversial page ;) Cobalt2020 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Reference Links 

message: hey all, I cleaned up about 14 of the links in the article. The rest need to be cleaned as well. Simply do what I've already done. I encourage you all to keep the sources in accordance with wikipedia. Buzz me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this months ago, and no one has acted. This article has been tagged because the links/refs need to be cleaned up. I'm again posting to say this needs to be done. I encourage you all to work on cleaning up and making them more on par with wikiP. --Maniwar (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: This section needs a complete rewrite.  Once it is finished, and sourced appropriately, the article will have attained B-Class.  There are related articles connected to this one, and an attempt should be made to summarize them in this section.  It is therefore appropriate to rename this section "Overview" per WP:SERIES. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-war campaign 

message: " I left the Roman Catholic Church permanently after the 2004 elections, when many Roman Catholic Bishops and priests encouraged their flocks to vote for George W. Bush because he was "pro-life."  "I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ." Kgrr 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheehan is a Christian 

message: Cindy Sheehan is not Irish-American and should be removed from that category. 75.34.26.160 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both comments above. The entry absolutely adds no value to the article or to an Encyclopedia. There is too much hyphenated-Americanism going on, and basically every biography should then be hyphenated since we all stem from some other countries. I would like to see it removed, and unless there is consensus against it, I may remove it myself. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: There is a sentence in the first topic (last para, under heading 'anti-war campaign) to make it appear as though Cindy Sheehan was lying or making things up, and that statement incorrectly states that Prime minister Harper of Canada had support from all over canada. Whereas the opposite is true. If you click on the link that is cited (#22) it is clear that Harper's party did not have support in Quebec. Therefore the statement that Harper had support in all parts of Canada is factually incorrect and should be removed.--207.194.108.93 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are correct, but since that poll was about Harper's party and not specifically Harper, I checked and saw a better poll in March, indicating that even in Quebec, he was the most frequent first choice as the most likely to be a good Prime Minister. --Habap 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong conclusion from canadian polls 

message: I would say, the best thing to do, is shorten the page. She is not that big of a figure to warrant such a large description to her life. Just a few paragraphs, concentrating on the major events is all that is needed. A paragraph on Casey, her camp Casey, and her run for Congress (more, if she is to win). And a short section on what her critics say.
This, I believe, would make it more NPOV.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).  I do not believe the article should be shortened; this is an encyclopedia.--Gloriamarie 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, which is why it needs to be shortened. No real encyclopedia would allow such voluminous fluff on a barely notable figure. Algabal 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten the page 

message: The antiwar campaign section has a neutrality tag; I'm not sure how long it's been there or if the section has actually been checked for neutrality yet.  The Hurricane Rita comment is listed as a "controversy", yet when conducting a search of the phrase used, Wikipedia is the second hit, Free Republic (a forum and not a reliable source) is the first, an Associated Content (user-generated) site is the third, and a Blogger blog is the fourth.  It doesn't seem that this created much controversy among mainstream news sources at all, so it's not worthy of inclusion in the article. The Israel email seems to have been more commented on, if only by one writer at a reliable source, which doesn't seem to qualify it as a "controversy" either.  This is just my two cents.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiwar campaign 

message: Does this category really belong in this article? I would suspect that a a category called American Christians is about someone who demonstrates, shows, and earns that category. Just like I don't think she's earned or deserves the Irish American category because it is not significant enough, I don't thinks she has earned or deserves this category. Now, I'm not talking about her being a Christian but I am talking about what justifies her being added to this category. What say the rest of you? --Maniwar (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:American Christians|Sheehan, Cindy 

message: I've started formatting the references. My goal is just to make the reference section display better. Most references now are just the URLs themselves, which do not break, causing the two columns to overlap.
I notice that some references that use the template do not display correctly, but I could not find out what the problem is. Perhaps someone more familiar with the template can look into this.
I also restored the Prison Planet interview reference. In this context, it does not matter whether Prison Planet is a reliable source or not; the paragraph is about things she said in this interview, so the interview itself is the best source there is.—Graf Bobby 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, and Prison Planet interview 

message: I have removed the paragraph that read:
Cindy Sheehan was to appear at a rally in Charlotte, NC on July 17th 2007. Due to the presence of right-wing groups, including the "Gathering of Eagles," who had threatened her in the past, combined with the refusal by the police to separate the counter-demonstrators from the demonstration itself, Sheehan relocated to a business a few miles away where she spoke with supporters.
because it was unsourced and potentially libelous. - Skaraoke 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph Deletion 

message: The parts that say she has retired need to be rewritten, I think. Despite her announcement a few months ago, she has continued to be involved in anti-war activism, even being arrested today at General Petraeus' report to Congress. The announcement can be kept, but lines like "In May 2007, Sheehan officially ended her involvement as an anti-war activist..." in the first paragraph should be rewritten since it is clearly not accurate. -Kraw Night 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not 'retired' 

message: "Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies.[55][neutrality disputed]"
How can the above line be disputed for its neutrality?  It's linked to an open internet letter, written by Sheehan herself, in which she discusses the terrible trials of trying to find a sweet, delicious smoothie or blended juice/protein coctail in Madid, while she was on her way to Venice.  Sheehan herself talks about being on a "fast," while in the same paragraph bemoaning the fact that she had to eat ice cream because she couldn't get a smoothie, whatever the hell that is.
I can't even tell whether the disputed line was written by someone who was pro- or anti-Sheehan!  How can that be POV?  It makes it obvious that Sheehan wasn't really "fasting," but the fact that Sheehan doesn't understand that "fasting" means "not eating... not even cool, refreshing, blended treats" doesn't make it POV.  I can't tell whether it was written by a Sheehan supporter (trying to justify her non-fast) or a Sheehan hater (laughing at her for calling her all-smoothie diet a "fast").  Either way it's not POV.DougRWms 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't let your hatred for this woman interfere with your editing of the article. It's pretty transparent. Please look up what "fast" actually means before you edit the article. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that sentence is POV.  I suspect that the objection may be the use of the word "smoothies" since its kinda sounds like a fun thing (the tv commercial where the tough bikers are talking about and drinking smoothies comes to mind here).  While I really don't see a problem, perhaps if the we substituted the word "smothies" with something that sounds less trivial. "Milkshake" perhaps? I dunno.  Doesn't sound like a major issue in any event. Dman727 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out what a liquid diet is. Smoothies are liquid, you drink them through a straw. She didn't "eat" anything and your pov is spilling into your words and the article. It is a liquid diet. Please do some research. If you check the code pink page (which she is listed on) it includes tips for sustaining their liquid diet. This is not a water only diet which is also called starving to death. Please stop reverting the page. Turtlescrubber 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you don't think "liquid diet" is sufficient, should we explain what a liquid diet is? Turtlescrubber 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting in verifiable information about the aspects of her fast is sufficient and notable.  If readers want information on nutrition and how other subjects fast that information is out there.  For this article and subsection what is important is the details of the subjects fast.Dman727 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously what is the problem here?  Cindy is a notable individual and certainly her fast is notable (as she intended).  This an encyclopedia and its goal is to illustrate notable things.  Cindy has made a point several times to point out the sacrifice she is making and the details of her diet.  I suppose that the term "smoothie" has some concerned as it sounds like a fun, trivial term/word.  But thats not a rephrase, they her own exact phrasing.   Sure we could cut it out details, but thats not the mission here. I just don't see a pov issue. Dman727 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats probably a ok compromise.  Removing details will likely satisfy folks who think that specific food items represents someones POV.  Granted it makes the article less informative, but clearly information should take a backseat in this case. Dman727 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delicious Blended Frozen Treat Fast... 

message: Listing what someone can eat on a liquid fast? Why? Trying to paint Sheehan as a hypocrite. Should I also list what she won't eat for balance. Hot dogs, hamburgers, bread, cheese, twinkies, etc. Or shoud we include other things she imbibes like water, coffee, blueberry juice, orange juice, lemonade, broth, carrot juice, juicy juice, capri suns, sunny D. Why the pov pushing? Lets discuss. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about the citation. The citation is fine. A liquid fast is still a fast. If you cared enough to be npov, then the description should be something like "abstained from eating solid foods".  Following your logic, I will add all of the liquids she is allowed to eat. Did you stop reading my response after the first sentence? Turtlescrubber 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov tag added 

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please give citations for any allegations 

message: We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned.  An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article.  If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: .  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed from Code Pink article 

message: This entire article reads like a biased, one-sided love letter to one of the most controversial Americans of the last five years. Wikipedia is disgraced as a source of encyclopedic information when it is allowed to display such blatant bias by tone and omission.
Where are the "Criticism" or "controversy" sections I see applied to so many conservative political figures for this article. Not everyone thinks she is a wonderful "Peace Mom" after all. Heavy, heavy criticism from all forms of conservative media and politicians have opined about her and labeled her (justly, IMO) 1.) a terrorist sympathizer 2.) an anti-Semite 3.) a woman who is shamelessly using her son's death to climb to fame while mocking the conflict he cared enough about to fight and die in.
Surely you can find links to Townhall, FoxNews, Limbaugh, Bush admin. officials, Washington Times, etc. that would flesh out the opposition to this woman felt and expressed by just as large a group of detractors as she has supporters (her support seems to be amply covered already, I see).
Just because lefties seem to dominate the ranks of Wiki contributors and moderators doesn't mean that this site should turn into one-sided liberal blog. Keep it balanced. Delete nothing, but add the counter opinions too.
-TDB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is biased, nobody's keeping you from looking up proper sources and presenting the other side. Have fun, and good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculously POV, Pro-Sheehan mess masquerading as encyclopedia entry.