Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 5

message: Why was the photo from the "World Can't Wait" rally removed? Is in NPOV showing a photo of Sheehan at a rally at which she spoke, with one of the speakers at that rally whom she appeared to greet? Sure, the fact that he's a communist calling for revolution and for Bush to step down doesn't particularly paint Sheehan in the most flattering light, but it appears she did speak at the rally and did greet this guy. If we're going to be NPOV, why can't we include this photo? --Habap 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WCW/RCP rally photo

message: Editor badagnani continues to summarily revert edits without any discussion.  The description of Lynne Stewart is not POV.  It's how she identifies herself in the first line of her own website.  It is also how the Washington Post refers to her.  That editor would be better occupied if he/she participates in a discussion on this page first to see what accommodation can be reached before reaching for the revert button.
I will also change the editorial comments of the counterprotest.  The numbers speak for themselvesDawgknot 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will accept the current status of these two issues as is resolved by editor Badagnani.  Nicely done.Dawgknot 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The description is POV. Her calling herself "radical" is a point-of-view. She can call herself anything she wants. The question is what should the Wikipedia call her. The Wiki is neutral on whether she's "radical" or not. If she called her "goddess" would you insist on worshipping her? Mark K. Bilbo 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question.  Still, while the use of the word, radical, in most cases, would be POV, in Lynne Stewart's case, it is descriptive, accurate and she accepts it as appropriate.  Goddess, on the other hand would be subject to serious debate regardless of how much she believes it.  Neither you nor I, regardless of our respective views of her, would accept goddess.  But do either of us dispute radical as accurate?  How can that be POV if it is, in fact, widely held.  Would anybody object to referring to Howard Stern as "shock-jock"?  Or Avakian as communist?  These are all true descriptions that the respective parties would accept.  It's not worth my time to debate this further.  There are claims that this article is definitely NOT NPOV.  I don't accept that, but this is an example of editors trying to protect these public players from the implications associated with their own conduct and words.  That said, they shouldn't be trashed...just accurately described.Dawgknot 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They" above is "public players", not "editors".  That should have been more clear.Dawgknot 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that there doesn't appear to be a single negative thing about Sheehan that can be removed for whatever reason --Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (By the way, I agree about identifying the critics as "conservatives." It'll be obvious to the reader in the first place if they know anything about the people in question, it adds nothing but a stray sentence hanging in space, and the Wiki needs to avoid making judgemental comments as much as possible.) --Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'll freely admit that I despise the woman with an intensity that reaches loathing and disgust.  But I know rudimentary fairness.   I also understand what this encyclopedia should be.  We can begin with the fact that if POV rules, it will be of no use to anyone and will become yet another dead URL.  While I view this page as pretty much a shrine to this skank, I would (and can be counted upon to) dispute any contention that it hasn't been reasonably neutral (given the subject matter) and would support the work of the editors so far.  That said, it is clear to me your own views are pretty obvious as well.  For example, it is not only conservatives that have been critical.  Except on the fringes, she is certainly a pretty marginal character.  So you don't have to look at the O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's to find source material.  The August Rasmassun poll certainly found folks who aren't conservative who dislike her even to include 18% of those that favor withdrawing from Iraq.   It would be remarkable if a poll taken today didn't find that her 15 minutes expired a long time ago.  All that said, we can work together and I hope you will agree that I have tried to participate in the wiki spirit.  If not, say so.Dawgknot 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, my POV is pretty clear: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. If "it is not only conservatives that have been critical" then go get some sources already. One of my personal rules around the Wiki is "don't tell me, show me." --Mark K. Bilbo 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, me too.  I"m glad we understand each other...lolDawgknot 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, did you notice I just agreed with you on not introducing the section on "media personalities" as "conservatives say?" --Mark K. Bilbo 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  We're getting somewhere.  Now, maybe we can agree that Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer.  But I doubt it.  As I said earlier.  I don't do edit wars and this isn't worth worrying about.  Although self-described radical is an accurate statementDawgknot 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing the compromise position of "self-described radical lawyer" hasn't been discussed yet? Is that too wordy? I'm not sure that it's either useful or necessary to describe someone Sheehan supports as "radical". Thus far, it seems to me that anyone who might be considered "moderate" wouldn't get her support, so it kind of goes without saying.... but I offer the compromise nonetheless. --Habap 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything wrong with it. Looks to me like calling herself a "radical human rights lawyer" is a pretension. She's the Big! Radical! Defender! Of! Human! Rights! (I can just hear a motherly voice saying "that's nice dear" <grin>). --Mark K. Bilbo 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Radical" Stewart 

message: I've been digging for over an hour and can't find any evidence Avakian has returned to the US nor that he would be allowed to without being arrested. For example:
"Avakian's representatives said the author is eager to have his views more widely discussed but wants to stay out of sight because he fears government harassment. He fled America in 1981 amid what he describes in the book as a suffocating climate of intolerance." 
That's dated 29 April 2005. The claim that he's in the photo from the "World Can't Wait" rally needs better sourcing than "because I said so." 
You know, there's plenty of material that the RCP is heavily involved with and even initiated the "World Can't Wait" rally without playing this silly picture game. Mark K. Bilbo 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having been familiar with Avakian, I assumed it was the head of the RCP speaking. Looking at the photo and the videos, it obviously isn't Avakian, but the page asserted that he is "one of" the leaders of the RCP. --Habap 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user that uploaded the picture made the claim here. This whole thing is getting silly. There's plenty of material that can be used in the Wiki to show the connection between the rally and the RCP. The site for the WCW rallies state the RCP was a founder. This isn't some kind of "hidden" information. Not by any measure. Frankly, I'm getting suspicious that this is all about getting personal material (and POV) rammed into the Wiki. Mark K. Bilbo 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited that description since it doesn't even look like Avakian. --Habap 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I support the use of the picture as a primary source, I do not think it should be posted until the man in the photo is identified.  I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to do that and can't find it.  He's clearly not Avakian.  He is obviously representing the RCP and he walks off the stage and hugs Sheehan, but until we can indentify him by name, it should be held off the article. Dawgknot 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooops.  Forget my last.  I just read the caption and it looks fine.   The last time I saw it, it referred to the commies.Dawgknot 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Avakian 

message: I added this tag because the article in its present state is very unbalanced. It reads like a press release from the Sheehan scheduling office. It allows very little criticism, and what critical things are shown are followed by refutations, swinging the balance back to a very lopsided approach. Balance needs to be added to this article, and the discussion above shows that others have tried but have not been successful. --StanZegel   (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically do you see as "unbalanced"? What would you like to add? What would you like to delete? Don't just make accusations. Only vandalism was removed from the article. --Asbl 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have restored it because the article as a whole still lacks balance. As can be seen by comments elsewhere on this page, postings critical of her seem to have a short half-life. --StanZegel   (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the author. The article completely praises Sheehan and I post a photo of Sheehan attending a communist rally, which is indeed a fact and legitimate and it is continually taken down because it doesnt show her in the best light. This article is a joke. 
JJstroker 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Tag