Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 8

message: A not so small thing.  Sheehan "has always been a democrat".  This is not needed and weasel worded. It also makes an assumption all democrats are anti-war.  If Sheehan had always been against war, it would be an addition, but being a member of the democratic party does not equal opposition to war.  So this frames all war opposition as partisan.  That is incorrect.  Please remove that sentence.
First the small stuff: The second paragraph ought to be broken into two seperate paragraphs; it just helps it to flow better.
Also, the following paragraph (currently the thrid) reads:
:Sheehan gave another interview on October 4, 2004 stating that she did not understand the reasons for the Iraq invasion and never thought that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. She further stated that her son's death had compelled her to speak out against what she feels to be an unjust war, in order to help to bring the troops home and hold politicians accountable. 
I do not wish to violate POV rules and I realize these are Sheehan's own opinions, but I think a premise is necessary. Certainly, Sheehan's entitled to her opinion, but that opinion is worthless if she cannot substantiate it. More importantly, I would think it an injustice, on our part, for this article to continue without some sort of abridgement reminding the reader that Sheehan is not an authority of any kind. Remember the folly of Kenndey's campaign against Eisenhower's administartion and its alumunus - his opponent - Richard Nixon and you have enough evidence proving the information the government is privy to is not what the general public is privy to. Remember the (lack of) success of British arms inspectors in Germany during the inter-war era and you have enough evidence proving the potential impotency of that role.
Sheehan's not a political authority, at best she's a mother devastated by the loss of a son who voluntarily committed himself to his nation during the time of war, and has since divided her family and contributed to the divide of the nation. I think the premise ought to be gentle, but failing to remind the reader that Sheehan's position is not an authoritative one is a violation of the POV rules. I posted this before changing anything because I want discussion first - remember that old Athenian proverb about war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.104.237 (talk • contribs) .
: The quote clearly says, that it's Sheehan's personal opinion, therefore I don't see a NPOV violation. Raphael1 21:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with Raphael here. It merely relates what she thinks and feels and clearly states that this is her opinion. Her opinion is quite clearly going to be judged based on whether one agrees with her or not. Stating she is not qualified would be, in and of itself, POV. I agree with you that she is uniquely unqualified, though. --Habap 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheehan's campaign against the Iraq War 

message: The first picture of a page, optimally should show what the person looks like. (See Articles: Ruch Limbaugh, and Michael Moore).  The current first picture, is a little small, filled with noise, and her face is covered with a microphone.  I believe it would be more useful for depicting what her views and activities might be, rather than as a first picture. --P-Chan 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Picture

message: It is also important to add that her statements to Canadians through a letter has received much criticism for misstements, generalizations and misinformation.
:Maybe if we knew what you meant by this we could add something.  Since you seem to, why don't you add the information yourself, if you think it's important/necessary to have in the article?
I've just read the new text about Canada.  My opinion is that it doesn't seem important enough to include in this encyclopedia article.  It's more relevant to Canada than to Sheehan herself.  Badagnani 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at least as important as her statements in Ireland and Venezuela. I mean, if she feels qualified to speak on Venezuelan politics (applauding Chavez) and also speaks on Canadian politics, shouldn't both statements be included so that the reader can make their own conclusions about the validity of her statements? --Habap 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree. The article entry is about Miss Sheehan and her causes - Canada being one them. Her vocal stance on Canadian support for American  war dodgers should be included. I'll write something up when I get the time.--Skwurlled 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements to Canadians

message: It seems to be the most acceptable form of referencing on wikipedia, plus it allows you to view the quality of the citations easily.--P-Chan 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs inline citations 

message: Why is a photo credit listed for the main photo for this article if it is from the Commons. Such credits are nonstandard on Wikipedia, used only when they are required to use the image, which clearly cannot be the case for a Commons image. Would anyone object to its removal? That is what the image page is for. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo credit 

message: Should be readded, I will do so later if no one can prove why not. Google News shows relevance for this, as does straight google search. rootology 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: deleted here. rootology 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I reverted that edit 3 minutes after it happened. Do you need to purge your cache or something? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoot, thanks, nevermind. Yeah, Firefox choked. rootology 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed quite a bit the various epithets used over time by Sheehan's detractors (some quite vicious).  "Peace mom" is quite accurate and not pro or con, she is a peace activist.  The just-removed statement, however, is not widespread and a profanity, thus I don't believe it appropriate for our article.  The pro and con statements, further, belong in the article that was split off for this purpose.  Badagnani 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not weighing in on this subject, but I am weighing in on Badagnani's comment that it belongs in the criticism article. You've stated this before, however I dissagree and so does Wikipedia. This information should be mentioned in the main article. However, if the article is long enough and warrants (which this one does) a break off section, then you mention it here and elaborate on the other page. However, it needs to be touched on in the main article to cut down on clicks. -- 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We're talking about the anti-Sheehan commentator's epithet "tragedy whore," correct?  If that must be added, then all the other similar names given to her by equally well known anti-Sheehan commentators must necessarily be added as well:  "the Ditch Witch," etc.  But do you really feel that the inclusion of such name-calling significantly improves Wikipedia?  I believe we already know these pro-Iraq War media personalities are strongly opposed to Sheehan's Crawford, Texas camp-outs. I don't believe we generally include the insulting names that other similar public figures have been called over time, though I'm sure there have been some equally fanciful ones.  Badagnani 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have to clarify, chuckle, and admit...I don't specifically mean the name calling. I'm speaking more on the criticism of her. For example, this edit here  could have been cleaned up and left in there rather then deleted. I really was responding to a couple times you mention that criticism needs to go in the other article, but as pointed out above, I disagree. I do agree the name calling should be left out and that the article needs to be clean, legible, and structured, but the editing out of her criticism is too much. I wish all the editors of this article would clean up rather than delete. Anyway, sorry about the mistake, and again I agree that the name calling should not be left in. -- 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you look in the history you'd see that there was a great cornucopia of pro and con comments originally, as the story and Wikipedia article were developing.  There was a profusion of anti-Sheehan comments, as every miniscule non-notable anti-Sheehan statement by one of the conservative commentators would be added day by day.  Finally editors decided to split them out into a separate article.  So your proposal is essentially trying to take the article back where it was -- too big!  Badagnani 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Mom 

message: Not sure if this might help with the article, but in Civil War, Marvel Comics' current comic book series whose themes reflect on current events, there is a character inspired by Cindy Sheehan named Miriam Sharpe. I just thought the editors working on this article would be interested to know that and might even be able to use it as a reference to hir impact on the culture. --Chris Griswold 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvel Comics character 

message: Regarding Sheehan's purported reluctance to attend the State of the Union speech, this is a primary source:
:After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.  Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746  Badagnani 00:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense now, since there is a source.  You probably should put that source in the article.   --Blue Tie 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the Union 

message: Has anyone seen on Fox News Cindy's interview? It was the one where she was comparing a Twilight Zone episode where someone goes back in time to kill Hitler. Then she says that she wanted to go back in time to kill George Bush. Sick. Anyway, maybe someone could put some info on this in the article. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent interview 

message: User:Pgc512's edit to Cindy Sheehan was very POV. The statement says Other Sheehan family members and if one reads carefully, they will note that it does not infer 'all' family members. This statement is presenting the families very public statement and no other family member has come out to challenge any different. Why is it that people have an issue with it? Is it because it does not paint her as a saint in her (some) family's eyes?  22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of that letter probably belongs in Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, where it was earlier, as that article was split off from the original Cindy Sheehan article, until someone re-added it without the necessary context.  The context is important:  Quartarolo apparently wrote the letter herself and does not name the other family members.  Why didn't other family members speak out about whether they agree or disagree with the letter?  Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  Most people don't want anything to do with controversy and regardless of their feelings wouldn't have an interest in speaking out (or giving greater importance to the letter by even addressing it at all).  Badagnani 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are too many POV edits going on in the Sheehan article. Like the discussion below (Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry campaign). I cited five sources, both mainstream and conservative. Yet, when the new sources, which by the way tend to be liberal, are added, they are left in the article? This is not a criticism. I was simply pointing out that other Sheehan family members dissagree with Cindy's 'apparent' personal agenda. If things to do with Hugo Chavez made the article, this deserves a spot.  01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "contribute to the NPOV mood that I'm trying to establish" Oh yeah, your agenda is so much higher and mightier than anyone else's. Durbinmj 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment was quite brilliant! 1) Salon is a far left and many times unreliable and unverifiable source. 2) I’ve tried to balance it by inserting reputable and known sources, Drudge, MSNBC, World Net Daily, and Washington Post. 3) I’m trying to input a neutral tone (from the beginning). As mentioned, I’ve provided sources and this is a relevant story. It made the news and was featured on all the major media outlets and therefore justifies some attention. The obvious reverts are biased and only cite far left sources that are not, to user the phrases being thrown around, not reputable sources. Again, help make the article better rather than spewing POV edits. It’s obvious that this article is attracting POV edits on both sides of the aisle. -- 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the statement simply clarifies that the email does not name the relatives purported to have co-signed the letter, and makes clear that it is not certain that they wrote the letter collaboratively.  Further, it does state "aunts" but we know that DeDe Miller is one of the aunts who has protested in Crawford with Sheehan and thus cannot have been one of the writers of the letter.  It is clear that there is no consensus within the family, as the public statements of DeDe Miller and Casey's sister Carly make clear.  There's nothing POV about presenting the voices of both sides of the family, which is what we're doing.  Thank you for your interest in this article.  Badagnani 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be added that Sheehan has stated that she was not surprised by the Quartarolo email and that the Sheehan side of the family (i.e. her husband's side of the family) includes many pro-Bush members.  That is not in dispute, though the identities of the exact co-signers of the letter are.  Badagnani 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of speculation in your statements. You can speculate all day long as to who did or didn't sign. To make that statement is an interpretation and most interpretations are POV. To leave it as the article states, makes it neutral and reports what the article states. You are interpreting the article and thus influencing the mind of the reader...thus, it is truly POV and your opinion. -- 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, that's an interesting point.  Obviously I think the statement is necessary in that the signature implies that *all* the Sheehan relatives were in on the letter; it does imply that all the aunts were involved.  DeDe Miller, another of Casey's aunts, is not actually a Sheehan but a Miller (as was Sheehan before marrying).  What do other editors here think about this issue?  Badagnani 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, if Drudge was the only source for this, I would delete the whole quote.  However, Cindy was vouched for its authenticity.  Even so, it may belong in the "controversies" article.  Wherever it is, it needs the comments clarifying that it represents SOME relatives, and it is NOT clear who they are.  For example, the Scaramento Union reference includes this sentence: "The letter is attributed to 'Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.'" Pgc512 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Statement

message: Above is proof that Cindy Sheehan's protest, which was big news here (as some of us were editing the article as it was happening), also attracted significant news coverage in many European countries.  My rudimentary knowledge of Chinese tells me that 辛蒂希恩 is a Mandarin Chinese transliteration for Cindy Sheehan.  (Another set of characters used is 辛迪希恩.) This, and these links for articles from that time in the Chinese and Vietnamese languages:  should be enough to help the new editors move on to another more deserving issue.  Sina, a Chinese news service, has a page where they covered nearly every move Sheehan made during that period: http://news.sina.com.cn/z/fzmq/index.shtml . Thanks for your interest.  Badagnani 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  辛迪希恩 or 辛蒂希恩 = Cindy Sheehan in Chinese 

message: How notable is this? It also made Taranto’s best of the web today. It certainly does illustrate her critic's claim that she is a bit mentally unbalanced. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother Sheehan Buries Her Uterus in Texas

message: I think the data from http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/AmericanMourning.pdf should be worked into the article.  It is oddly missing a criticism section, so not sure where to put it. - MSTCrow 08:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an insufficient source for a defamatory allegation. The authors are known political activists. We'd need at least one more independent source for the alleged adulterous affair before we could post that to the article. -Will Beback 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce, Sexual Promiscuity, Affair with Lew Rockwell 

message: Paragraph 6 under Sheehan’s campaign against the Iraq war says the attention given her was merely national in direct contradiction to the international reference we have been debating over the past week.
*Fixed.  Badagnani 03:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. National/International

message: 3. Paragraph 7 refers to supporters of Cindy’s actions (I’m assuming this refers to Camp Casey mentioned in the paragraph before it) but critics of the Camp are not allowed, like the removal of the reference to the Larry Mattlage article.
*Comment: Are you speaking of the Mattlage shotgun incident?  Isn't that in the chronology?  That was removed to a separate article (the chronology of Camp Casey); check that out and see: Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas#Week 2. Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it was removed to a separate article. That is why I said, "Paragraph 7 refers to supporters of Cindy’s actions....but critics of the Camp are not allowed, like the removal of the reference to the Larry Mattlage article. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the paragraph with the Rosa Parks comparison?  Doesn't it say in the next sentence that some critics have said that she had committed treason by opposing the Iraq War?  That's a pretty strong statement in and of itself.  The thing is, the first name (Yearwood) is given in order to give the source of the Rosa Parks comparison.  The "treason" label has probably been used by various conserative media personalities, so it's hard to pick one.  The source states that Bill O'Reilly called her activities treasonous, so why not just add "such as Bill O'Reilly" and then you'll have one supporter and one person against?  Of course, the pro and con comments are largely in the separate article for pro and con.  Badagnani 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section refers to Camp Casey and you have a quote comparing her to Rosa Parks in regards to the camp. Why is there a statement that she had committed treason by opposing the Iraq War instead of something critical of the camp itself like the supportive statement is? According to a correction made on SFgate.com, "O'Reilly referred on his Aug. 9 TV show to support for Sheehan on an antiwar Web site and said: "I think Ms. Sheehan bears some responsibility for [the Web site's content] and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." On the next day's show, he said: "I said some families who also lost loved ones in Iraq believe what she's doing borders on treason."" Durbinmj 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If by "critical of the camp itself" you mean the actions of locals Larry Mattlage or Larry Northern, I don't know if their actions (shotgun blast and cemetery drive-by, respectively) would be the most elegant expressions.  A further argument is, do articles on all anti-war activists from all historical periods necessarily have a 50/50 mix of "for" and "against"?  Possibly the only way to stick to the facts and avoid injecting the opinions of every tom, dick, and harry is to omit the Parks reference (I'm not sure how widespread that was) entirely.  The original reason for its inclusion (I'm not the one who put it in) was probably the equivalence of both being ordinary women who did something that others may have wanted to do but were too scared, opposing a powerful system with an act of stubbornness and refusal, risking all the backlash that we're still seeing today (even in the face of the war's increasing domestic unpopularity).  Badagnani 04:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for the complete removal of this paragraph. The first sentence is what we are currently discussing, the second sentence already has promenence in the opening paragraph of the article and the third has very poor citation. Durbinmj 05:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Camp Casey Opposition

message: 4. Paragraph 12 is in the wrong tense. I think the sentence should read; “Sheehan, however, backed Green Party candidate Todd Chretien in that election.”
*Comment:  What is wrong with the tense?  His website says that the election is coming up this November.  Badagnani 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, a consensus has been reached. I was mistaken and thought the election was in February. I apologize. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. Chretien

message: 6. The section under U.S. Congress incorrectly quotes a letter signed by 16 Democratic Congressmen. It says, “calling on Bush to ensure that no one will be arrested for having a peaceful demonstration” when even the article cited merely mentions “We also request that you help ensure that Ms. Sheehan and her colleagues are not arrested as long as they continue to wait for a meeting with you at their location in the peaceable and legal manner that they have maintained thus far.” That’s hardly a blanket calling of no arrests whatsoever.
:My recollection is that the "no arrests at all" came from a Sheehan site. Since the actual letter doesn't say that, we should stick to the actual letter instead of someone else's interpretation of the letter. --Habap 13:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6. Congressional Support

message: 8. Paragraph 2 under State of the Union Speech, the sentence “Sheehan later declared that she intends to file a lawsuit” was changed from ““Sheehan later declared that she intends to file a lawsuit but as of yet has not.”
*Comment: If cited from a reputable source that she has not done so.  Badagnani 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you heard of a lawsuit? I would think that would make some sort of news. How can you cite a negative? Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "but as of yet has not" is the unreferenced opinion of one wikipedia editor.  In any case, I don't think it belongs in the article. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What opinion? Is there a lawsuit? I have not seen any news coverage of a lawsuit. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would I know if there is a lawsuit?  I don't know one way or the other.  All you are saying is that YOU have not heard of a lawsuit - i.e., your own "original research". Pgc512 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a lawsuit, it would have been in the news. To say that there is no lawsuit is not OR. If he said something like, "but there are no grounds for a lawsuit", that would be OR. However, I do agree that "but as of yet has not" is not useful in the article. If she does file a suit, we can add that at that time. --Habap 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8. SOTU lawsuit

message: 9. Paragraph 5 under 2006 activism the sentence “Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies” was reverted from “Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks, smoothies and ice cream.”
*Comment: If cited from a reputable source.  I haven't seen an ice cream reference in news media other than on some blog of someone who said they saw her eating ice cream.  Maybe it was sorbet?  Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check her website. And it looks like we need to add coffee to the list as well. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  She says she had a drink on a trip made with coffee and ice cream because she could not find a smoothie.   It would be silly to add it.  This article is not a list of the foods she consumed during her fast.  By the way, it is very dangerous just to fast on water alone, especially if you are traveling, etc.. Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's important to mention the fast in the article, it's important to mention her version of the fast vs the health community's. From the online medical dictionary published at the Dept. of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle: fasting-Abstaining from all food. food- 1. What is fed upon; that which goes to support life by being received within, and assimilated by, the organism of an animal or a plant; nutriment; aliment; especially, what is eaten by animals for nourishment. 
In a physiological sense, true aliment is to be distinguished as that portion of the food which is capable of being digested and absorbed into the blood, thus furnishing nourishment, in distinction from the indigestible matter which passes out through the alimentary canal as faeces. 
Foods are divided into two main groups: nitrogenous, or proteid, foods, i.e, those which contain nitrogen, and nonnitrogenous, i.e, those which do not contain nitrogen. The latter group embraces the fats and carbohydrates, which collectively are sometimes termed heat producers or respiratory foods, since by oxidation in the body they especially subserve the production of heat. The proteids, on the other hand, are known as plastic foods or tissue formers, since no tissue can be formed without them. These latter terms, however, are misleading, since proteid foods may also give rise to heat both directly and indirectly, and the fats and carbohydrates are useful in other ways than in producing heat.
2. Anything that instructs the intellect, excites the feelings, or molds habits of character; that which nourishes. "This may prove food to my displeasure." (Shak) "In this moment there is life and food For future years." (Wordsworth) 
Food is often used adjectively or in self-explaining compounds, as in food fish or food-fish, food supply. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "facts" are she was claiming to be fasting. The sentence in the article is incomplete. Like I said before, if it's important to mention the fast in the article, it's important to mention her version of the fast vs the health community's. A casual reader will assume a fast is no food whatsoever. However, her version is different and I think if it's important to mention the fast, it's important to list her version in its entirety not just half of the exceptions she made. Durbinmj 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the intent of the edit is to shed doubt on the sincerity of the fast.  Whatever the case, as it is sourced from Sheehan herself, it might be fair to add that she restricted herself to water and other liquid foods, with the exception of one instance where she had coffee with dissolved ice cream.  It seems a minor point. As the ice cream would hae dissolved in the hot coffee, it would thus still qualify as a "liquid food" in the same way that many people add (non-iced) cream to their coffee.  Badagnani 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good guess but the intent of the edit is to have the article be factual. I would be all for changing the sentence to "she restricted herself to water and other liquid foods." But I would insist that a citation be added to list all of the liquid foods that the fast included for clarification of her version of a fast vs. everyone else's assumed definition of a fast. Durbinmj 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with Durbinmj here. When they announced the fast, I had the impression that they wouldn't be eating, since that's normally what people think of when they speak of a fast. The fact that fasting is dangerous to your health is what gives it such impact - that would be, Sheehan is so concerned she is risking her life to get the message out. The simple fact of the matter is that she was only symbolic in her fasting and that ought to be in the article. --Habap 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think saying " but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies " is sufficient to get out the information that it was not a full-tilt water-only fast.  Even Gandhi had a little orange juice during his fasts I believe.  Anyway, it looks like to add the coffee-ice-cream part, it would have to be a long qualified sentence such as: "And once during a trip where she couldn't get the blended juice/smoothies, she resorted to the closest thing available: a drink made with coffee and dissolved ice cream". But why make such a mess out of the article for such a small point? Pgc512 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out Ghandi's article, specifically under the Freedom and partition of India section. "Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice." (emphasis added) Durbinmj 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was intended as a juice fast.  Badagnani 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: She didn't specify it as such, "...some, like me, will be fasting for a specified time. My fast will begin on 7/04 and end on the last day of Camp Casey: 09/02." Durbinmj 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some of us will be fasting completely until the troops come home; some will be on liquids only until the troops come home; some will fast for 2 weeks, 2 days; or like me, until at least September 21st." I suppose she was one of the people "on liquids only."  Badagnani 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "...some will be on liquids only until the troops come home..." Is she still fasting or did she end her fast on 9/21? Durbinmj 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Troops Home Fast website says that it ended September 21, but that some people are fasting in solidarity every Wednesday, or however long they choose, in various other parts of the world.  Badagnani 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cindy Sheehan said, "...some, like me, will be fasting for a specified time. My fast will begin on 7/04 and end on the last day of Camp Casey: 09/02." She also said, "...or like me, until at least September 21st." So according to her she ended on either September 2nd or 21st. The only mention of her on the codepink website is under 'other fasters' and not under the 'List of Long-Term Fasters'. Is she continuing to fast on a limited basis? If so, what are the current terms of her fast? How does this relate to the mention of the fast in the article? Durbinmj 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By these standards, maybe I should post on my user page that I plan on fasting every night from midnight until dawn? --Habap 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9. Fasting

message: 10. Paragraph 7 under the same section had the sentence “Although there are no plans for the City of Crawford, Texas to accept the donation nor create a Casey Sheehan Memorial Peace Park.”
*Comment: If cited from a reputable source.  But would the city need to *accept* it if it were on privately owned land?  Badagnani 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "Sheehan intends to donate the land to the City of Crawford." That would not make it private land. Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball speculating on whether they will or will not accept the land is inappropriate. If they can be cited as "not having plans to accept it", then it is valid, otherwise, it is simple speculation and probe to POV. Why don't we leave the reaction of the town until she actually does attempt to donate it? --Habap 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. According to this website it sounds like they would probably take the land as a donation just to get rid of her, but I really don't think there will be a memorial. I'm working on a citation of the city official's plans if the land or a memorial is offered by Sheehan. I do think it would be worth adding a mention on how she had to obtain the land secretly and the previous land owners were misled. Durbinmj 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10. Crawford

message: 11. Paragraph 8 under the same section was reverted back to future tense when I changed it to “Sheehan released her memoir on September 19, 2006…” 
*Comment: That seems to be a good call.  Fixed. Badagnani 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here Pgc512...but that would only be a start. The 3RR rule needs to be followed by all, and the other issues address in my original post. This article is far from being a good article. -- 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems fine to me, except for POV tag.  What I am talking about is a few sentences and a link to the separate criticism/support article.  She lost her son in the war.  She has protested that war. She galvanized support against the war.  That should be the main focus here.  Pgc512 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 11. Memoir

message: This is an outrage!!! What "concensus" came up with the edits you just made Badagnani? How is it that my edits get immediately removed, I add them here for discussion and you, and only you, get to cherry-pick the edits you wish to make to the actual article? Why is it that some of my edits get immediately added and the others must have citation or you ignore them completely? You are not the sole owner of this article. If you require "concensus" on edits and the rest of us are playing by those rules, I don't think it is too much to ask that you play by them as well. Durbinmj 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite upset that you are editing in a manner that blocks others from contributing. You still seem to have the mentality that you somehow own this article and only your edits are acceptable. Thus the necessary "bluster." There are two others that are contributing to this discussion in a very active way, Maniwar and Pgc512. Why is it that your edits are "small and noncontroversial" but my edits are complicated because I choose to edit all at once to avoid several small edits in the history. What exactly constitutes the necessity for a revert in your mind? Is it only when you do not agree with them? Durbinmj 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said before, I am quite upset at your hypocrisy and your blocking of any edits you do not approve, thus the shouting. I'm sorry I have taken so much of your precious time.... Durbinmj 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to make a correction, I do not and have not contributed much to this article. I can only remember doing one, possibly two edits to this article. However, I agree that there is no consensus and that Badagnani seemingly is monopolizing this article. -- 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are exactly right, and when I commented on your contributions I was referring to the discussion and not the article itself. Badagnani said "very few editors have really been contributing to the discussion of these specific points" but I was trying to tell him me, you, him and Pgc512 are all active, not to mention others occasionally, and shouldn't be ignored or blocked from editing the article. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  No editor is perfect of course, but I think Badagnani is doing a good job maintaining the intrgrity of this page.  Pgc512 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with PGC here. As I was reading through the specific points, I was glad that there was agreement from the two of you on some of them. I saw no reason for Badagnani not to make the edits that both parties agreed upon. Should it be "all or nothing"? I think that we start from things we can all agree on as valuable edits (like the ones about using the correct tense) and then figure out which edits are disputed and work on resolving them one at a time. --Habap 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say, "Should it be "all or nothing"?" Badagnani says yes. I initally said I made several other revisions that were changed back but were never discussed. The problem is that no changes are allowed to this article unless Badagnani agrees with them and if they are too much for him to go through all at once he says, "The problem is, the previous edit had about 12 things changed all at once, and I did not agree with some of them (disagreements stated above), hence the revert." (emphasis added) And he changes everything back without discussion or concern of agreement. Some of my changes were merely grammatical but because he didn't agree with the first one out of the box, my entire revision was reverted without regards to others or grammar. Wikipedia does not work this way. Durbinmj 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is the Wikipedia works. Including several content changes in the same edit as grammatical corrections is like a Congress adding an amendment to build a bridge in his District to a normal funding bill. If you separate grammatical corrections, which are inherently non-controversial, from content changes, it makes it far easier to act on as editors. That way, we don't have to throw the baby (grammatical corrections) out with the bath water (content changes that might be controversial). --Habap 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What doesn't work is one person blocking edits that do not reflect their POV. In the past, when I have done small edits separately, I have received communications on my talk page asking me to combine my edits into one edit from numerous admin. You will see the same on Badagnani's talk page. I thought that was the way it's done. Durbinmj 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's implying that another editor is editing due to POV?  We're trying to ensure that the article doesn't express a POV.  The editing style (specifically as regards number of distinct edits per "save") is a judgement call and those commenting admins don't express the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia editing practice.  Badagnani 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not implying. You show no regards to POV in your actions. I suggest you read Help:Show preview. Pay close attention to the part that says "It is strongly recommended that you use [the Show Preview button] prior to saving...It also prevents the need for multiple saves. Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history." Durbinmj 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Developing Consensus