Talk:Cindy Sheehan

message: I'm not getting this revert to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened.Gobbleygook (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  Your edits did not improve this article.  Your edits injected partisan, off-topic sources into this topic.  Could you explain, on a point by point basis, how your edits improved this article? Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits aren't "partisan" as it isn't making a claim about Cindy Sheehan (it is only highlighting the political affiliation of the Cindy Sheehan for) nor is it off-topic, as the information cited bears directly on the topic. And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. Moreover, even if you think this is a case of tendentious editing, that in itself is not sufficient grounds for removal. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future.Gobbleygook (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are partisan, and I don't see how they improved this article. Could you please address my question?  How do your proposed set of edits improve the coverage of this topic?  Exactly what have you accomplished?  If you can't justify your edits, we can't use them.  It's that simple. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It improves the article because leaving out the political affiliation of Cindy Sheehan violates NPOV and probably UNDUE by implying that it is non-partisan/independent when it isn't. (It should also be pointed out that the Sheehan herself has admitted that she is politically socialist) And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BLP, activist is a far more accurate description. Apteva (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken about the activist comment, so I've left that. I've merged the politics section as I don't see why they should be separated and I've also re-added the sourced material part about her political views.Gobbleygook (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments do not explain how your edits have improved the subject nor why you have made these changes. Viriditas (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit premature to add politician, but per this ref it can stay. (running for Governor next year) As to some of the other parts, I am not sure they are properly sourced. Apteva (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, I am notifying those involved in this discussion that I am delisting this discussion from WP:3O. There are more than two editors involved in this discussion therefore it does not fall within the scope of WP:3O. If additional editors are requested to add their opinions to this conversation may I suggest WP:RfC as an option. If there is a content dispute and a mediator is viewed as needed may I suggest taking this discussion as WP:DRN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Support - I think it should say that she changed her voter registration to the Peace and Freedom Party. Don't mention how she's "been described" as a socialist revolutions: that could be a bit inflammatory and your source didn't make that a main point. Do, however, put in what you said about her blog, but don't give that one post WP:UNDUE weight. Use others to establish her personal views. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ]  21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Except, you didn't follow his advice and you cited a primary source without a secondary to support it.  That's not good enough for a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the user never says doing that constitutes grounds for deletion of the citation of the primary source. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Primary sources only require an accompanying secondary source if it requires an expert interpretation of that primary source to back the assertion made here. To assert that Sheehan described herself as a "X" at "Y" and then provide a primary source where she describes herself as "X" at "Y" is not interpretive. This is academic since the last reversion you've made it a cite to a broken link. If, though, the link is restored there is not a policy conflict in the language used which you reverted here. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Input was duly noted and changes were made accordingly. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing edits 

message: Whether it is okay to merged the politics section and re-add the sourced material part about her political views.Gobbleygook (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I think it should say that she changed her voter registration to the Peace and Freedom Party. Don't mention how she's "been described" as a socialist revolutions: that could be a bit inflammatory and your source didn't make that a main point. Do, however, put in what you said about her blog, but don't give that one post WP:UNDUE weight. Use others to establish her personal views. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ]  21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Except, you didn't follow his advice and you cited a primary source without a secondary to support it.  That's not good enough for a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the user never says doing that constitutes grounds for deletion of the citation of the primary source. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Primary sources only require an accompanying secondary source if it requires an expert interpretation of that primary source to back the assertion made here. To assert that Sheehan described herself as a "X" at "Y" and then provide a primary source where she describes herself as "X" at "Y" is not interpretive. This is academic since the last reversion you've made it a cite to a broken link. If, though, the link is restored there is not a policy conflict in the language used which you reverted here. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Input was duly noted and changes were made accordingly. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cindy Sheehan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070516165243/http://www.kcentv.com:80/news/c-article.php?cid=1 to http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=7708
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cindy Sheehan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519215203/http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081305B.shtml to http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081305B.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.eurasiareview.com/201005181918/cindy-sheehan-on-peace-heroes-albert-einstein.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cindy Sheehan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003105359/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan2.html to http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617011936/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0817-06.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0817-06.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829185044/http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0543,lombardiqa,69280,2.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0543,lombardiqa,69280,2.html
*Added  tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=672721
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was a merge request by an IP. I am procedurally creating the discussion here. The rationale offered was "Laura Youngblood should be merged into Cindy Sheehan. She is really only known for her rivalry with Sheehan and has not done anything substantial of that. We really do not need all the stuff about her late husband and the rest of the article can be added to a new section in Sheehan's article about their rivalry." --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Laura Youngblood]] into this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cindy Sheehan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907150803/http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10032005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10032005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704024244/http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1793 to http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1793
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a reason why Sheehan's involvement with right wing conspiracies is missing?   Considering she is still considered a "left" icon, leaving out her problematic past gives a lopsided impression.
Credible publications have covered this issue:
Slate:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/09/so-that-s-it-for-cindy-sheehan.html
"So That’s It For Cindy Sheehan
By David Weigel
Sept 28, 201011:10 AM
Via Stephen Gutowski, here’s the star of the summer of 2005 completing her descent into any-conspiracy-will-do-ism and declaring herself a “9/11 Truther.”
There really was a political/cultural moment when Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq, was an un-touchable, credible activist. Conservatives who attacked her at the time, like Glenn Beck and Mike Gallagher, were criticized for being so gauche. But Sheehan was adopted into other left-wing causes and the broader left really dumped when she ran a quixotic third party campaign against Nancy Pelosi in 2008. I am not, not, not making a one-to-one comparison here, but there is a lesson for tea party activists who are currently and unquestioningly the toast of the conservative elite and the GOP. "
And the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/09/cindy-sheehan-truther/181881/
There was coverage at Mediate, but it's only in wayback:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101002053901/http://www.mediaite.com/online/cindy-sheehan-im-a-911-truther-i-do-think-it-was-an-inside-job
The omission of this information is particularly odd as Sheehan's page is part of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists grouping.
SKyle666 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any content could be put into the article based on those sources. The blog post from Slate is not a reliable source, and Mediaite is only considered "marginally reliable" on WP:RSP. The Atlantic article is just repeating the content from the Slate blog (which is based on another blog). Do any more reliable sources discuss this issue? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I feel Cindy Sheehan is relevant to the Bush Administration era, and minor developments in her beliefs and allegiances since then, in 2019, don't belong in this article. -Jordgette [talk] 14:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, having her page linked with 9/11 conspiracies (at bottom) makes no sense.  And I would disagree that a left anti-war activist aligning herself with right wing conspiracies, often of a racist bent, is a minor development.SKyle666 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am a 9/11 truther" and other links to far right conspiracies?