Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 3

message: Archived the talk again. This article needed a clean slate anyway. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Let's see...27 pro-Sheehan links versus 12 against her. Yep, that's good ol' fashioned NPOV balance all right...using Wiki's left-leaning math. (Actually, I guess I should be grateful it's not 27 to 0...) RMc
* I agree, I think it should be evened out. (66.92.0.61)
* So find more relevant articles for the "Opposed" section, if you can. Hiddekel 02:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  27-12 

message: Oh my god!  As of this posting there are only 872 words under the "SUPPORT" section of Sheehan, and 987(!) under the "CRITICISM" section.  What a clear right-wing POV bias!
I presume RMc will be removing the necessary amount of words in the CRITICISM section until the article is balanced.  Actually, using Wiki's right-leaning math, I should be grateful it's not 987-0, huh?
Come off it.
*What do you mean?  We can't even it down to exact words of support or criticism.  Besides, I feel this article is as balanced as a controversial article can be.  Although, I am really sad to see that she has more text than her SON does (but, as the nature of the media, there's not much more that can be said about the guy).  --Mrmiscellanious 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  987-872 

message: Moved from Talk:Cindy Sheehan/to do
Cindy Sheehan - The Real Story?
This was reportedly written by H.A. Brown, Author of Alive in the Spirit
What is most interesting is that the press gives this little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy's background.  This is a case of more press bias. It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democrat Party. She had very little to do with her son in his growing years.  She remarried.  The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife.  They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of Americain Iraq and on terror.  They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq.  He volunteered.  How many news stations carried their interview?  Not many. So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink.  She gets an audience with Bush.  That was not enough.  She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy?  Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her son.  She let another woman raise him.  Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers in Iraq.  Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush.  And the press is helping her.  Why?  Then 2 days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son.  It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy.  We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also.  We should be fed up with the press.  They manipulate us into their "group think"  and into the responses that they want on their polls.
(annon user:67.35.127.217)
:The above text is given the status "False" on Snopes. —Brim 09:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindy Sheehan - The Real Story? 

message: Re:  the Shughart reference (why is the person adding it spelling it "Shugart")?, it seems to me that if Shughart had set up a tent outside Clinton's vacation home and stayed there for weeks, it would certainly have been in the news (as the Kenneth Starr proceedings were).  Though maybe I'm wrong, from the article it sounds as if Shugart's protest was a one-time thing.  Maybe another difference in the amount of coverage is that Somalia was a short, relatively financially cheap venture, while Iraq has been much costlier (and hence becoming more unpopular) in terms of money and lives.  Badagnani 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shughart reference 

message: As part of task 3, I am going to begin boiling down sections of Chronology into short paragraphs.  The initial purpose of the chronology was so that we could separate the initial view points debates from what was happening day by day.  I did not want to lose references to good articles on what was happening.  However, as things become history, we can take what happened and boil it down into a good, tight paragraph.  I envision one paragraph for Casey Sheehan, her initial activism, Camp Casey, one paragraph on the Bus Tour, one paragraph on the Washington Demonstation and subsequent arrest.  
Today, I will begin with Casey Sheehan.  Here is the before code:
=Casey Sheehan=
*May 29, 1979: Casey Sheehan born.
*1985: joins Cub Scouts
*1987: becomes altar server	
*1993: moves to Vacaville, California
*1996: attains rank of Eagle Scout, the second one awarded by his Boy Scout Troop (180)
*May 1997: Graduates from Vacaville High School, with Honors 
*1997-2000: attends Solano Community College; earns AA in Drama
*May 2000: Sheehan joins the United States Army.
*March 202003: US invasion of Iraq begins
*August 2003: Sheehan re-enlists knowing that his unit would be sent to Iraq.
*March 2004: Sheehan's division, the First Cavalry Division, is sent to Iraq.
*March 19, 2004: Sheehan's company, Charlie Battery, arrives at FOB War Eagle in Sadr City.
*April 4, 2004: Sheehan killed in action after volunteering as part of a QRF to rescue the American troops.  
Kgrr 12:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took your text, put it into the Casey Sheehan article, and then further boiled this to a single paragraph. I believe it conveys all the relevant information while leaving the details (second Eagle Scout in his Troop) to his own article. Also, decided having it display "QRF" was a confusing acronym instead of helpful - having the words makes it more meaningful. --Habap 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Kgrr, a request:  you seem to be unnecessarily chopping out a lot of non-extraneous content.  Can you please be more careful about this?  Just in the first paragraph "Activism" the mention of Gold Star Mothers and several other important items are completely gone.  Can you please take a look and re-add such information, if you insist on reworking the bulleted chronology as prose (which I don't agree is desirable, or necessary).  Badagnani 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology -> Short Paragraphs

message: Longtime democratic former mayor of New York, Ed Koch, as self described liberal has written an op-ed piece about Cindy Sheehan in which he LIBERALLY quotes Wikipedia!
This may not be as exciting for some of the long timers as it is for me, but it's the first time since I began working here that I saw Wik quoted so profusely as an authortative source. I hope we continue to earn our mettle as a highly respected and credible reference source.
Since Mayor Ed Koch  was so nice to quote wik in his piece, I'm gonna extract some noteworthy comments he's made about Cindy for our article. A famous mayor of New York quoting Wikipedia. That's awesome! Big Daddy 02:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gonna be tough do that, as you were recently banned for life from Wikipedia.  Consider that a gift from me. Eleemosynary 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayor Ed Koch Cites Wikipedia! 

message: Does anyone else find this a bit awkwardly worded?  What's next, critics of the criticism of the critics' critical critique?  ;-)  Seriously, though, that section seems a bit unclear to me.  Andyluciano 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of the Critics" 

message: Seems like she is in Egypt holding a protest on behalf of people the government accuses of being a threat to the state.  I have no clue how to word it, but I'm hoping someone will. [Link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPMN401&show_article=1].  [Link http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5539957.html].  If she continues on this path, perhaps she should be included with those of providing "comfort and aid" for the enemy in the form or propaganda like Tokyo Rose.--Hourick (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protesting FOR Islamists.... 

message: While I initially agreed that the section is irrelevant and needed to be removed, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the section should be put back in and retitled.  It is something that she believes is true and might add to what her state of mind is.  I'm not looking to add credence to the idiocy of the 911 conspiracy theorists, but it is part of her makeup. --Hourick (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 Conspiracy section 

message: I tossed alot of irrelevant stuff.  Please refer to Pres. Bush not Bush.Geo8rge (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cleaned things up a bit 

message: The article mentions her parents and her son, but makes no mention of her husband.  I am adding reference to her husband, Pat. Dogru144 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage, part II 

message: I don't think her merely being on the board of this organization is really worth mentioning.  There is no special reason to think that she made any of the decisions.  When the organization's problems are mentioned it seems like an attempt at guilt by association. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crawford Peace House 

message: The article says: "On July 23 at the Capitol she announced that she would run against Pelosi based on her failure to attempt impeachment of Bush; she was then arrested for disorderly conduct."  I rather resent the implication that the United States is a country where a person gets arrested for announcing a political candidacy. Either explain what she did to get arrested or take off the information that she was, please. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?