Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 4

message: 1. I would suggest that we remove the two announcements from the 16th of August in the timeline, as the announcement dates themselves are not particularly relevant or meaningful. Both events are listed on the dates on which they occur already, so this is repetitive. (We'd move the links to the announcements to the actual event dates.) Here are the announcements:
:16 August 2005: MoveOn.org announces a nationwide "Vigil for Cindy Sheehan" to take place Wednesday, August 17.
:16 August 2005: Move America Forward announces a "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" caravan ending in Crawford, on August 27.
2. I would suggest that we remove one of the two entries concerning the return of Casey's boots to Sheehan from the American Friends show.
:22 August 2005: Casey Sheehan's boots are removed from the American Friends Service Committee's traveling exhibition "Eyes Wide Open: The Human Cost of War," in order to return them to Sheehan.
:25 August 2005: Casey Sheehan's combat boots are returned to Sheehan by the American Friends Service Committee[151][152][153]
3. I would suggest that we remove the date of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, as the landfall date has nothing to do with Sheehan. Reference already occurs to Katrina in the 30 August entry about Bush ending his vaction and two entries on the 31st (Sheehan's speech and Bush's survey).
:29 August 2005: Hurricane Katrina, a Category 4 storm, makes landfall in southeastern Louisiana.
4. I would suggest that we compile the list of who visited Camp Casey, and when,  and place it separate from the chronology.
Humbly submitted, --Habap 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater specificity is better in these cases.  Please trim other aspects of article besides chronology.  Badagnani 15:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the chronology is fair game for careful reduction. Specificity is admirable where it furthers a reader's understanding of the overall subject of an article, while redundancy, however, is not. These proposed trimmings seem well-reasoned and well-founded, and I hope there are more to come. --NightMonkey 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Above the rest of the article, the Chronology is the section most in need of trimming. Indeed, it seems to generate the largest number of complaints. Habap's suggestions are most reasonable and even rather conservative (in the non-political meaning of the word); my only suggestion would be to remove both mentions of Casey's boots and in their place placing mention of when they were originally donated (or the inclusion of why the return of these objects is significant). Unfortunately I have never been able to find out when that was, but perhaps others know or know how to find out. -- Thought 03:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Badagnani, what is better about specifically identifying on this page what day Katrina made landfall? What does it add to the article? How is greater specificity in which day the boots were removed and which day they were returned helpful? (When I edited that line, I even kept the date of the return in the line on the removal, so no information was removed, but that was reverted by you.) Why is the date on which they announced each of those rallies important? Why can't we list all of the visitors together rather than in the chronology? I'm sorry, but I am frustrated by your refusal to explain why these specific trimmings would hurt the article. --Habap 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unconvinced by the edit summary for reverting the removal of the Katrina landfall date: restore context for future references in August and Sept. to Bush's and Sheehan's activities and statements vis-a-vis the Hurricane. I don't understand why it is necessary. If you intend it to say something about when Bush ended his vacation, this is the wrong article for it. I also don't see what it adds to the understanding of Sheehan's activities and speeches. Could you cite and explain the specific instances? --Habap 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please look at the chronology, and you will see that in the wake of Katrina, there are several chronology entries which refer to this hurricane.  Very simply put, the date the hurricane hit is significant in light of these subsequent entries.  Without it, there exists a confusing lacuna.  Badagnani 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to look lacuna up on dictionary.com. I learn something every day here. --Habap 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific trimmings

message: Badagnani, you have stated that without the landfall date "there exists a confusing lacuna". There are four references in the chronology to Katrina, all of which contain wiki-links to the Katrina article if someone senses a lacuna. To wit:
:30 August 2005: President Bush decides to end his five-week vacation early to focus on relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
::This doesn't even belong in here because it's not about Sheehan, it's about Bush. I don't see why the landfall date is required to make this one understandable, unless the goal is to say "Bush responded slowly to Katrina", which belongs either in the Katrina article or in the Bush article or somewhere else. It is not a biographical point in Sheehan's life.
:31 August 2005: Bush takes Air Force One to Washington, D.C., surveying the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina from the air en route.
::Again, not about Sheehan. This item also doesn't require the landfall date to be understandable.
:3 September 2005: The anti-war bus tour arrives in Minneapolis, Minnesota where protesters link the Iraq War with the inability to respond to Hurricane Katrina.  "People are dying in Louisiana and New Orleans right now" because Bush, a "warmonger," is intent on "looting" oil in Iraq", said state Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis.
::I don't know whether Sheehan was present at this rally, but I don't see how the landfall date is required for this to make sense either.
:9 September 2005: Cindy Sheehan meets in San Francisco, California with senator Dianne Feinstein's staff to point out that the war in Iraq is taking away resources that could be better used in the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast.
::I don't see how the landfall date is required for this to make sense. Users can follow any of the wiki-links above, or we could link "hurricane-ravaged" to something on Katrina if we think they really are suffering from a lacuna.
I thought that the whole point of having the wiki-links was so that you didn't have to explain everything in one article. I am truly disappointed that you are so quick to revert and so slow to answer questions here. The only time I have gotten any response is when I have made a change and awaited the edit summary in your revert. I posted here first to start a dialogue, which has been like pulling teeth.
I started my trimming here in the Chronology because it is, quite frankly, the most bloated part of the article. With the knee-jerk reversions to any changes and the extreme reluctance to discuss the issues, I have no confidence that editing the rest of the article will be any easier. I am especially daunted by your most recent edit summary Chron was good before and it's good now., which I take to mean No changes in the chronology will be accepted.
Please explain how each of the above chronology entries requires the landfall entry. --Habap 20:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article should be trimmed. The details of every single rally she goes to doesnt really need to be posted. 
JJstroker 23:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Katrina landfall

message: I realise some of you have worked hard on this article, but does it really need to be as long as it is? Why is the chronology section as long as it is? 29 December 2005: Sheehan goes to Burger King and orders a Whopper. Are we being a little too specific? I am not really sure what we would cut, I haven't studied this article in depth, but right now it is around 86 KB, just a hair over the recommended 32. Any suggestions? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See directly above. All specific suggestions for trimming the chronology have, thus far, been rejected and reverted by Badagnani. Perhaps the Bus Tour should be moved to another article? I don't know if that would be acceptable either. --Habap 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, LV... open your eyes before commenting. Okay, going to read the above thread. I'll try not to be as non-observant as before. Sorry bout that. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just posted a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war or someone to split out the bus tour chronology to a separate article. Hopefully, this might bring some more edits to this article, who may be able to develop a consensus on content, splitting and length. --Habap 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Thank you for presenting a balanced and neutral article on this controversial figure.  Most of the anti-war pages are full of self-congratulatory statements about organizers, without a balanced criticism of the movement.  I'm sure that many of you detest the criticism, but it helps keep Wikipedia a encyclopedia, and not a soapbox.  Thank you all for your diligent efforts.  Morton devonshire 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are editors here who may not agree with Sheehan as well as those who may not agree with her critics who are endeavoring to keep the article NPOV. Personally, I detest all the vandals nearly as much as the wingnuts on both ends of the political spectrum. In the new year, I'd like to extend my thanks to all the people helping edit this also. It's a tough job, but worth the effort. --Habap 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: In hopes that we can reduce the size of the chronology, I have created a new article on the Bring Them Home Now Tour. That chronology doesn't list everything in the Sheehan chronology, as some activities Sheehan participated during that time did not involve the tour. I would like to suggest that we trim the bus tour chronology here, place a link to that article, and determine which events we don't have to cite in both articles. Hopefully, Badagnani will agree that this is an acceptable way to reduce the size of this article. --Habap 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bring Them Home Now Tour]]