Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 2

message: The previous discussion has been archieved.  See the link above the ContentBox. Kyle Andrew Brown 16:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: * General feeling here in the archive seems to be to have this section in sub sections by topic rather than critic.
**Yes absolutely--Arnoldlover 19:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the "falsified story" portion need to be in there?  It seems to me that it does nothing.  It's just Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Barnes claiming she is somehow false.  Mr. Limbaugh's claim is nothing.  It has no points but merely says she's false.  It is akin to claiming she is stupid, wrong, or purple.  Mr. Barnes has more substance but even his only amounts to disagreeing with her opinion.  She claims President Bush is fighting the war for oil to pay his friends.  There is no proof that she does not believe her story or that she is making it up to get on TV so it only amounts to a difference of opinion between Mr. Barnes and Ms. Sheehan and isn't really a criticism. - 24.7.186.18 22:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comentary on the Criticism Section 

message: As the article stands, the "Comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict" doesn't seem to fit in the introduction, or perhaps anywhere.  It seems extraneous, maybe added because someone doesn't like this small element of her stated position.  What do others working on this article think about this?  (Of course, thinking of the clarity of the article and not whether you agree with her position or not.)  Badagnani 07:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The source posted here is a random Usenet post.  She denied she ever said those things on Anderson Cooper's show.  So I'm removing it - we have a well-sourced denial, with the other source being a random Usenet post from someone in Thailand. Ruy Lopez 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rich Lowry of National Review is reporting that ABC has confirmed that she wrote the e-mail.    TexasDawg 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rich Lowry or ABC doesn't have to confirm she wrote the letter because she herself said she wrote a letter to ABC.  She never said the attributed comments about Israel however.  Let me ask a simple question: what is the source of the letter with the added Israeli comments?  The best I can find is a random Usenet post.  If I wanted to smear her, I could take the transcript from one of her speeches, change a few words around and post it.  Not that I disagree with the made-up statement by her, but the point is she never made it, we have her denying it, and the source of the rumour is unknown, the best source is some anonymous person in Thailand. Ruy Lopez 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: While the quote about her son dying for Israel was erroneous, her comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict are numerous.  She did say that terrorism will stop if "you get Israel out of Palestine" and she has called Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas a "slaughter".  I don't know if these statements warrant an entire sub-section, but one fictitious quote should not obscure the fact that she has made several very aggressive quotes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; quotes which have become an issue in the overall story of Cindy Sheehan. TexasDawg 22:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict 

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: This article is going to be held to a very high standard of pointing directly to attributed sources and demonstrating non-bias in the facts that are reported.  Editors reviewing content are going to strieve to bring to the Wiki community a sterling example of how an encyclopedia article is discussed, written, reviewed and acurately presents the facts associated with a volatile story.
This is a terrific ongoing American story that clearly has a demarcation of sides: and not just in terms of political persuasion, or beliefs about the war. Views will be presented in Talk and they are likely to be steamy - they should be.  
But I'll guess few will be impressed by vandalism or personal attacks on the writers in Talk or in the article.  In fact, they are sure to be dismissed as non-Wiki.Kyle Andrew Brown 02:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you keep a tally of possible vandalism.  In addition the 3 revert rule  needs to be enforced in this article. It has become a heated political forum which is certainly not the point of an encyclopedia article. --CSTAR 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Editorial Standards 

message: POV Inserter has been inserting POV edits on the ABC memo again. I think he has the story wrong here. The data trail is consistent with:
*Sheehan posted an email to ABC that contained the statement about the neo-cons being pro-Israel.
*A supporter added in the other comments that were widely reported by Drudge and O'Reily.
*Sheehan denied the comments of the form 'My kid died for Israel'.
There are two very different charges here. One is that the neo-cons are putting the interests of Israel before the US. This is not exactly an unreasonable statement, a federal prosecutor has just indicted several AIPAC members and a neo-con at the Pentagon for passing secrets to Israel.
 
The record is being edited here to match up denials to claims that are not being made. That is very wrong and very POV. It appears to me that this is a subtle dis-information campaign. --Gorgonzilla 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts are making you upset Gorgon?  Seriously, are you still in High School?  I heartily encourage all to read the additions I made and read the Slate citation.  POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hitchens is a highly partisan source here. He writes Op-ed for Slate, not editorial since he has a by-line on his articles. Only articles without by-lines are normally considered editorials. As for being in high school, that is another personal attack from you. As it happens I have a post graduate degree in Nuclear Physics. --Gorgonzilla 00:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well you certainly don't display the type of critical thinking I would think a degree like that would require.  Everytime you come on here accusing me of inserting POV you go running away with your tail between your legs when confronted by the facts.  So keep it up, I'll let truth be my shield.  POV destroyer 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealling with isses where forged documentation is involved is hard. The reason I had no re-edited was that I wanted to discuss here with you. Instead you simply re-asserted your original axioms and threw insults. --Gorgonzilla 12:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ABC Memo 

message: "POV Destroyer" is back.  (Please see the Talk archive for some past issues with him on this page.)  His latest change was to characterize all Sheehan's supporters as "liberal."  His justification for this?  The fact that Drudge, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh were described as "conservative."  Please note that neither Sheehan's sister-in-law nor any of the families of the troops who disagree with Sheehan have been labeled "conservative" in this article.
It is not an unfair "label" to describe the above media personalities as "conservative."  It is, however, exceedingly POV to describe ALL of Sheehan's supporters as "liberal."  Let's keep a close eye on "POV Destroyer," one of the most ironic monikers in the Wikisphere.
This is hilarious.  Yes please look at my history and see all the reverts of right-wing edits I have done in addition to left-wing edits.  Please read my quote.  It applies so aptly to some of you so-called "objective" editors.  The only reason some of you see my edits as POV is because you carry so much POV into this article yourselves.  You know exactly how you want this story portrayed, and you will call anything that runs counter to your idealogy, "POV".  Please be forewarned, that I was not born yesterday, and I back everything that I edit with facts and balance.  But if it makes you feel better, keep on starting discussions using my handle and accusing me of POV edits.  Those objective observers of this article will get a good chuckle out of it.  You should spend your time on the truly POV vandals that have disrupted this article lately. POV destroyer 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why Drudge and O'Reily get tagged is that they are essentially partisan advocates for the right who almost without exception promote the GOP party line. They are in effect simply 'deniable' spokespeople for the GOP and the administration. The political position that they promote is called 'conservative'. If there was commentary from Randy Rhodes she should be described as liberal. Rhodes and O'Reily are both paid to propagandize for one political point of view. If Sheehan had a bunch of Democratic party workers out there with her or the Socialist workers the label would be relevant. As it is inserting the label is simply yet another snide attempt to introduce bias into the article. It is essentially an assertion that the primary point of the demonstration is to damage Bush and not to attempt to bring US troops home. --Gorgonzilla 18:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is arguing about whether Drudge and O'Reilly are conservative.  But the same goes for groups like Moveon.org and Progressive Democrats of America.  So why not a label identifying those supporters as "liberal"?  By the way, nice job getting me blocked.  Yes, I'm the editor formerly known as POV_destroyer.  A real fair and balanced site this Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 01:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You got yourself blocked. And if you engage in more vandalism, or "straw man" tactics in Talk, the sysops will be notified once again.  I'm going to side with Kyle Andrew Brown on this and unplug from the discussion.  --Eleemosynary 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You damn fool, I'm not the anon poster he was talking about.  LOL!!  I think I will notify the sysops of you obtuse stupidity.  Homoneutralis 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's precisely such responses that got you blocked, and will continue to get you blocked.  Yes, Mr. Brown was referring to another vandal, who was also blocked.  There have been so many pathetic vandals around this article that its sometimes hard to tell them apart.
UPDATE: Now we learn from a sysop that it was your inappropriate user name that got you blocked.  Care to elaborate on your above "nice job getting me blocked" comment? --Eleemosynary 01:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, let's see, I had been contributing without issues for days, until someone today had a problem with my edits because they didn't think they conformed to their left-wing ideology.  And suddenly I'm blocked.  Why wasn't I blocked when I first created the account if it was merely an issue with my handle?  I'm done.  It's over, I've moved on, and I will continue to fight for balance and neutrality in this article. Homoneutralis 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it takes a few days for the users to catch on to an editor's not-too-thinly veiled right-wing ideology. And I doubt the sysops have the time to scrutinize every account name upon creation. So a few inappropriate ones slip through the cracks. Well, I'm glad you've moved on. And believe me, many editors will be ensuring the page remains balanced. --12.145.108.11 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's time to unplug our discussion with the anon poster vandal who violates Wiki protocol.  The views of the poster regarding the democratic party have been recognized, the notation of party affiliation does appear in its appropriate place in the biography and nothing else need be discussed with the anon poster. Kyle Andrew Brown 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Eleemosynary 22:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That rewrite violated WP:NOR, and as such, I reverted most of it. If you'd like to let the picture speak for itself, I'd reccomend verifying it's copyright status, uploading it to wikipedia, and linking it to the article with the caption "Cindy Sheehan kisses president bush (during/after/before) their (date) meeting." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant POV edit by "POV Destroyer"/"Homoneutralis" 

message: I reported 4.228.216.125 at WP:VIP several minutes ago and the IP address has been blocked for 24 hours. 23:42, 21 August 2005, Jpgordon blocked 4.228.216.125 (expires 23:42, 22 August 2005) (3RR) Soltak 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Eleemosynary 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.228.216.125 

message: I have limited my participation in the issues in this article. As an editor I am primarily concerned with content appearance, clarity and conformity with Wiki neutrality standards.  Perhaps it's time to unplug our discussion on this issue, as it has been resolved by consensus.  
The writer with the new handle demonstrates an understanding that Wiki particpation requires having the "neutral point of view editor".  The conduct  illustrates a choice not be meet that standard.
This article does not need to continue to engage participants who (1) use disrespectful words as a debate technique and (2) vandalize the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Kyle, for the wise words.  The anonymous vandal from Denver has resumed posting, and then claims vandalism when his edits are reverted.  His justification?  That the reverter didn't engage him in his latest rant on this page.  Is the best way to deal with to revert him, report him, then ignore him? --Eleemosynary 06:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Clear thoughts.  And much welcomed.--Eleemosynary 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View Editor 

message: News Hounds is citing the "unverified" transcript that I fought to include in this Wikipedia article as proof that Fox News is spreading lies about Sheehan:
 Homoneutralis 12:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a terrific find.  News Hounds is a a website, that carrys this transcript.  I cannot verify that the transcript is valid and state anything about News Hounds credentials.  If it is a valid transcript, then perhaps there is a utility for it in the article, certainly, if valid, as a link in the listings at the bottom.  From my perspective the issue has been limited to the phrase "unverified transcript" being used to introduce "fact" in an encylcopedia.
A google search on phrases from the "transcript" might produce a source that is neutral, in the sense that when it prints a transcript it is known to be deadon accurate, like off the AP.  Just a suggestion.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It isn't a suprise at all, we are dealling here with a story that involves claims of forged documents. If you read the Anderson Cooper interview you will find that the questions he asks include a quotations from the ABC email that don't appear in the version you discovered. I think we need to have a sub-section specifically dealling with the issue of the dispute over the forged documents. I think it is clear that there has been a doctored copy of the memo that has been circulating, I think it is also clear that Sheehan did allege that the neo-cons are Israel-first types, which of course they are.  --Gorgonzilla 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-oh, now you've done it.  Eleemosynary will soon be all over you calling you a biased, POV-inserting charlatan who should be blocked immediately...oh, wait, no sorry, that's only if you add anything that doesn't come from George Soros or Michael Moore. Homoneutralis 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And since we are sharing personal beliefs, I think the facts show that Sheehan is lying about the Nightline email. Maybe she doesn't remember writing it, but the fact that 3 different people all received the email from her and all 3 claim that it wasn't altered is pretty overwhelming.  I think she is just worried that the strong rhetoric it contains will diminish her current political capital. And I was not originally talking about the Nightline email, I was referring to the transcript of a speech she delivered at San Francisco State University in support of Lynne Stewart. Homoneutralis 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: E-mails are easy to forge (see the RFC on SMTP protocol).  The fact that several sources received the message does not mean it is legit.  Or that it's not. --Arnoldlover 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I see the personal attacks have resumed from Homoneutralis (formerly "POV Destroyer")  Well, that was quick.  Not sure what he means in the Soros/Moore paragraph; I have no problem with what Gorgonzilla or KAB wrote.  But, according to his second paragraph, Homoneutralis has now decided that Sheehan is a liar.  So, that would tend to, um, "temper" his NPOV editing ability somewhat.  I'll be watching his edits closely.  But I also agree with the earlier poster that, based on his actions here, he no longer need be engaged in this forum. --Eleemosynary 18:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just warning Gorgonzilla that admitting that he believes the rhetoric that Sheehan writes about "neo-cons" and Israel was liable to get him a firm chastising by you.  I suppose you will be watching his edits very closely now huh?  You are an entertaining character my friend.  Homoneutralis 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The transcript is unverified, corroborated by no reputable source, and the html information does nothing to change this. Horowitz's website has considerably more than a "conservative news slant"; he has, in fact, composed an "enemies list" on his website of anyone he considers part of the "American Left."  The website from which the "transcript" originates may be as far from an objective source as it is possible to get.--Eleemosynary 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny story this morning 

message: Without consideration of the content of the three links in the opening paragraph I am not sure that the opening is the appropriate placement of links.  If the links are appropriate to the article they should be placed in content and with perspective in the later body of the article, and more likely as links at the bottom.  Before the links are placed in context their should be appropriate discussion in Talk about what the links are about and the reasoning for them.  I kinda think the links to web sites/news sources at the bottom of the article are a very useful device.  However, I caution that in time those links may become cold.  
In anycase, the summary opening paragraph should not be cluttered and should not in that placement point to explanatory material. The format of the article should accommodate appropriate in context links.  Any links in the summary to news sources tends to lead the reader down the path of directed partisan view point without context.  
It is my understanding that consensus has agreed that the summary paragraph is not to be used for introducing partisan positions.  The format of the article has a clear division in format where the critics/advocates of each position are separated and the separation is editorially clear. The summary is not designed to bring separation and context. That is the function of the following sections.  
The task is to determine whether the links are appropriate and where is so, in the body of the article they belong in neutral context. Kyle Andrew Brown 12:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the links there in response to a vandal's removing of the sentence.  I have no problem if the links are removed, or placed elsewhere in the article. --Eleemosynary 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in summary paragrah 

message: It seems that most of the vandalism/edit wars are coming from one User with an IP from Level 3 Communications and mostly late into the night.  Maybe protecting the article from edits during the night in North America would eliminate this.  Homoneutralis 16:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The story moves each day, but not so fast that it requires hourly updates. I suggest that we try to work on a schedule where the page is locked for most of the time and is only unlocked for a short edit window or a few hours once or twice a day. In the meantime use the talk page as a clearinghouse for proposed changes. --Gorgonzilla 17:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: The most unfortunate thing about this story is that it is distracting us from researching what else is going on in the world right now.  I have spent at least 30 hours doing various edits on this article, and during that time, things have been happening to which I wasn't educating myself.
For example, how many of us understand the ramifications of the Hubbert Peak?  How many of us notice what is happening to the stock prices to the largest corporation in the USA, and probably the one that employs the most people globally... Wal-Mart?  How many of us have noticed that DR-CAFTA, The Energy Bill, and the Highway Bill were all signed, and what they all mean to us?  Did anyone notice that the Army plans four-more years in Iraq?
Sheehan is clearly important because she is the catalyst for a national debate about our place in the world.  Unfortunately, in a lot of ways, the public does not recognize that each one of us is causing this war.  We are continuing to use oil and spend money at the same rate.  Few people see the connection between the economy and the global military strategy.  Fewer still see how the rich are playing this global game... and how we are playing this game as well.
I am not advocating for or against Sheehan.  I am suggesting that there are connections from this to things about which the public isn't aware.  If we take our roles seriously as volunteer historians, we need to find connections and bring them to the light of day, and in a way so that the public understands the big picture of what is happening and why.
Americanus 22:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of Distraction 

message: In the section Rhetoric, there is the phrase and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda.  
Please wikify PNAC into PNAC or better: PNAC, since many people have no idea that PNAC exists or what it is. Probably also a good idea to wikify Neo-con. For easy click-n-paste, here are the links with some of the square brackets missing:
*Project for the New American Century|PNAC]] [[Neoconservatism in the United States|Neo-Con
Boud 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please wikify PNAC Neo-Con 

message: It can't stay locked forever.  Let's say it will be locked overnight in North America. Homoneutralis 17:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - locking is not a solution for a current event article. Its better to temp-ban all the vandals anyway. -St|eve 18:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock the article 

message: The defintion for rhetoric is:
Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
   1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
   2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric
While the first definition is what might have been meant here, rehtoric is used more in the second light these days as a term to imply that deciet or wrongness of the message a person is saying.
He points of view are opinion, and so the heading should be changed to better reflect a neutral position. Maybe "Cindy Sheehan's Poin t of View" or "Cindy Cheehan's Stance" or something.
:What?  The word "rhetoric" has by no means taken on a negative connotation.  The term is fine, NPOV, and should stay. --Eleemosynary 19:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindy Sheehan's Rhetoric? 

message: Stating in a revert to a revert "we will compromise" is not as appropriate as having discussion on the talk page.  
Also, I believe that stating in the context of the article that the President is either on a five week vacation or a five week retreat is intended to be inflammatory.  While it is true that the President is in Texas for five weeks and it is true it is his second trip since April, the use of vacation and retreat in the context here implies he is loafing around.  He well may be.  But I would maintain that the President is actually working near the level he works at at the White House (and I'll be fair, I'm not stating what That level of work is...).  
So anyway, I would ask a rethink on this discription of the Texas location.  If the text was written and a consensus agreed that there is (which there is) a dispute as to whether the President is being maligned for being on vacation for five weeks while the war continues and others say that he is actually working in Texas I think that is a compromise that is correct although I do not state whether the discussion is actually relevant here.
In any case on this issue could we please come to a consensus on the Talk page and not battle it out on the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just re-read your comments and realized that the term "working vacation" has also appeared in sources, although not in very many.  That may be another possibility.  Badagnani 22:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "reason Sheehan selected this time period to stage her protest"  I like this idea you  brought out; perhaps as a wrap around the vacation thing, something like, "Sheehan took advantage of the President's announced five day vacation in Texas ...to stage ..."  When we say the President announced that puts the onus on him calling it a vacation and ties it into Sheehan conveniently.Kyle Andrew Brown 23:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacation 

message: I observe that many right-wing slanted publications often write about Cindy Sheehan as being "Used by the left" to further some agenda.  And simultaneously, left-wing slanted publications write about Sheehan as "demonized by the right" ...  is this something worthwhile to note in the Criticism and Criticism of the critics sections? Kgrr 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Used by the left" and "demonized by the right" 

message: Please correct or remove these two statements:
1) She is sometimes referred to by the media as the "Pinko Mom."  in first paragraph
2) Cindy Sheehan, in a Liberal-Pinko-Commi Propaganda commercial released by Gold Star Families for Peace in August 2005 under picture
Kgrr 14:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just vandalism. It has been fixed. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinko Mom POV near top of article 

message: Homoneutralis, rather than just reverting back the use of the word editorial, could you kindly just go to Talk and help to work out just exactly the usage you are trying to convey.  As written it appears that Sheehan gave an editorial on Larry King.  That, again, is not what guests are said to do on Larry King.  Please indicate in Talk what is a better way to say what you want to say.  I am not going to revert your change at this time because I believe that it is more appropriate after a revert to discuss it in Talk than engage in waste of time reverting.  You appear to be referencing something in your explanation of your re revert but whatever you are referencing is not in the text.  In any case, I don't think Sheehan gave an editorial on Larry King.  Was she stating some defense to some editorial somewheres else?Kyle Andrew Brown 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyle, she did not write or say those things on the Larry King Live show.  She wrote about her experience on the Larry King Live show well after the show was finished.  I don't know how clearer I can be in explaining it.  It was an editorial about her experience on the Larry King Live show. Homoneutralis 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry King 

message: I kinda remember I think when this section got renamed Rhetoric but forgot the dynamics.  Right now it kinda looks to me as a modestly negative caption for discussion to follow.  In everyday political conversation to say "Their rhetoric..." implies a long windedness.  Sheehan issues statements and the statements should stand alone without caption interpretation.  If someone says "She's full of rhetoric" that's another story, but not one placed editorially as a neutral caption.
I dont want to head it "Sheehan issued these statements" its too long... But is there a more appropriate caption?Kyle Andrew Brown 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetoric 

message: Kgrr, we're trying to LEAVE THE SUMMARY PARAGRAPH ALONE.  We have had a very quiet week once we stopped working on it.  I believe consensus has already worked out that the hyper links to other documents belong in other locations in the article and not in the summary paragraph.  Kindly move your link elsewhere.Kyle Andrew Brown 19:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has already removed the reference.  She is called all sorts of things from traitor to peace mom by the media.  I'm not sure if everyone agrees to the term.  The link and reference was there to substantiate it.  Sorry. If the statement is controvertial, then remove the whole statement from the summary.  Otherwise quote where it comes from.  Kgrr 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary Paragraph 

message: Did Cindy Sheehan really want her son in the military? It sounds like Cindy Sheehan was hoping he would become a chaplain.  How did she feel about him re-enlisting?
Did Casey Sheehan re-enlist knowing that the "mission was accomplished" (according to Bush) on a peacekeeping mission?  Or, did he full know that he could go back into combat?
Kgrr 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casey Sheehan 

message: Was Cindy Sheehan always anti-war, or did her opinion about the war evolve from doubt to anti-war after her son was killed? 
Did she participate in anti-war demonstrations in 2003 before the Iraq invasion?
Kgrr 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always Anti-war? 

message: Who is paying for this anti-American production in Crawford, Texas? According to Darrel Ankarlo, ankarlo.net, George Soros/Moveon.org, Code Pink, Ben Cohen (Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream), the Socialist Worker Party, Communist Party, Feminist Peace Network, Young Communist League, USA (NY) Young Democratic Socialists, (NY) Democratic Underground, and John and Elizabeth Edwards are the larger donors.
the truth about the 'protest'
and here's a picture of one of the many 'spontaneous' happening at camp gimme-the-money:
:Wow, a whole bunch of Democrats paid for a Democratic protest?  Scandal of the century in my opinion. --kizzle 23:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
You "corroborating link" is a viciously POV right-wing website, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. Eleemosynary 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of left-wing financing 

message: Star-Telegram Jack Douglas jr
CRAWFORD - President Bush's supporters poured into Crawford by the thousands Saturday, for the first time outnumbering war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, who began a vigil here three weeks ago, demanding a personal meeting with the vacationing president to talk about her son's death in Iraq. 
With police security tight and the heat intense, tempers flared, and traffic was clogged. But by late afternoon, only two people had been arrested for what the Secret Service described as a minor "attitude thing." 
An estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people attended a pro-Bush rally in Crawford, waving flags and pledging allegiance to U.S. troops. At times, they accused Sheehan of dishonoring the death of her son, Casey, who was in the Army. 
Jeannine McEwin, 69, said she and her husband, Harold, made the six-hour trip from their home on Toledo Bend Lake, a mile from the Louisiana border, to help conservatives overcome the numeric dominance that anti-war demonstrators have had in Crawford since Sheehan came to town Aug. 6. 
"The left has had so much publicity, and we have sat back and done nothing," McEwin said. "We have allowed them to take over." 
Harold McEwin, 70, said he came to support Bush and the war in Iraq. 
"When I was 8 years old, I walked the streets of Shreveport picking up metal coat hangers to be used to build bombs and bullets" for World War II, he said. "I started out my patriotism right there." 
An additional 800 to 1,000 war protesters were on hand Saturday, many of them shuttled from the Peace House in Crawford to encampments along Prairie Chapel Road, which leads to the entrances to Bush's ranch. The day's events, closely monitored by police on the ground and in helicopters, easily broke the record for the number of people participating in demonstrations in Crawford since Bush turned his ranch into the "Western White House."
:Oh that's right, because believing the Iraq was a mistake means that you don't support the troops.  Gotcha. And I'm not so sure "left-wing extremist" is an honest attempt at NPOV. --kizzle 23:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:my only complaint here is that everytime I made a reference to an article stating how many people were at the camp 30, 704, 800, 1000, 3000 or 4000, the reference was removed.  I have no idea why people are offended over the number from either side.  Kgrr 01:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be because the numbers of Bush supporters reported have widely varied from article to article. This has been noted in the timelines.Eleemosynary 08:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush supporters outnumbered Sheehan supporters? 

message: "Secondly, when I got arrested and the officers lifted me out I was afraid that America would see my underwear and that tickled me."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/why-i-was-smiling-and-hur_b_7970.html
See also:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/09/cindy_sheehans.php
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cindy?from=510
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11271761.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sheehan300905.htm
Anyone wanting to include a selection of Cindy Sheehan quotes should include this one. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable quote