 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cindy Sheehan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
.svg){kind=small} | Anti-war Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
- 1st Archive August 20, 2005
- 2nd Archive September 2, 2005
- 3nd Archive to October 26, 2005
- 4th Archive to January 18, 2006
- 5th Archive to February 2, 2006
- 6th Archive to February 3, 2006
- 7th Archive to March 27, 2006
Support Of Hugo Chavez Deleted From Page
My posting of a photo and mention of Sheehan's support for Hugo Chavez was removed as "biased"! How is that in any way biased? Is there any dispute of it's factual nature? It seems to me that it was removed by those who are biased. I would like an explanation as to how reporting a fact is biased!!?? It is not an opinion it is fact! Again, how is that a violation of policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)
- That picture looks fake to me. Where did you get it? The Ungovernable Force 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It looks "fake" to you? Oh I guess that settles it then? Are you an authority on photo forgeries? Or is this a "hunch"?
- I suppose this is fake as well!: *Sheehan and Chavez on MSNBC's web site I guess you don't watch the news. This was all over the news networks, and very well documented. Were you really not aware of this event happening?
- Do all these look "fake" to you? For the record, there was nothing fake looking about the photo in the first place.
- Sheehan is glowingly embracing Chavez. I guess these photos are not "neutral"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)
- You don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm not an expert on photos, therefore I asked where you found them. And no, I don't watch the corporate "news" that often, and I don't really like Sheehan or Chavez so I don't really follow their stories too much either. I had no idea this happened. If you are going to have it in though, you might want to make the caption less obviously POV though. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- You were being a jerk by deleting the picture. 68.83.23.147 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) oorah
- I don't have the power to delete anything. The Ungovernable Force 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You were being a jerk by deleting the picture. 68.83.23.147 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) oorah
- You don't have to be a jerk about it. I'm not an expert on photos, therefore I asked where you found them. And no, I don't watch the corporate "news" that often, and I don't really like Sheehan or Chavez so I don't really follow their stories too much either. I had no idea this happened. If you are going to have it in though, you might want to make the caption less obviously POV though. The Ungovernable Force 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then, what do you suggest as an appropriate caption then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)
- I re-inserted it in the proper place (when discussing her trip to Venezuela) with a less POV caption "Sheehan embracing Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez after praising him." I am uncertain if "embrace" is appropriate for the gesture shown. We should leave evaluations of Chavez out of this article at least. --Habap 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The word 'embrace' is perfectly fine to use in this case. Also, 'The Ungovernable Force' - don't go around removing images just because you think they're fake. Next time do some research before making yourself look like an ass.--Skwurlled 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, The Ungovernable Force made a mistake. Lay off and try to be civil. Assume good faith before reacting. This article is beset upon by enough vandals that I can't imagine why editors who want to actually work to improve the article are at each other's throats. Be cool, daddy-o. --Chris Griswold 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, and what's more, I never even removed the photo (look in the history). I merely responded to the question on this page and tried to explain why someone else may have removed it. The Ungovernable Force 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Links
I see that people have been discussing this a lot, but I'm curious what the concensus is. Are we linking every article which mentions Sheehan? For example, I removed a link which, to my mind, is tangential in the extreme. The first time I read the article, I couldn't see that it mentioned Sheehan at all. I had to use Ctrl+F to even find the name "Sheehan" in the article., and her name first appears in the 19th paragraph. This link is the cruftiest of the crufty. So what is the concensus about these links anyway? --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Until I opened the link, I agreed with you. If you read through the four or five paragraphs that discuss Sheehan, people's opinions of her and her affect on Bush's supporters, it's hard to argue that the poll doesn't discuss Sheehan. If the article and the poll only mentioned that Sheehan may have affected the poll, it would be tangential, but this actually does discuss people's opinions of Sheehan. So, it ain't very crufty at all. (How did you miss Sheehan when getting to the bottom of the article?)
- There are probably a great number of links here that are not useful. --Habap 15:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that this article does mention and discuss Sheehan. But Sheehan is nowhere near the main focus of this article; her presence in this article is of perhaps tertiary importance. More importantly for inclusion in Cindy Sheehan, this link doesn't add anything to the article at all. For example, there are four other articles describing polls about Sheehan directly. Why is this fifth one here? Actually, looking at the list of links, it seems that editors have decided to include everything which has even been written on the web which contains the words "Cindy Sheehan". In related news, why on earth is there a link to an editorial by Michelle Malkin? All this stuff needs to go.
- In any case, this article needs tons of work. It's pretty clear that this thing is the end result of a huge POV war; it looks way more like a cable TV news debate than a Wikipedia article should. I want to jump in and make some changes, although I admit I'm a little reticent to do so...:-) --Deville (Talk) 15:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a significant community that grew out of Camp Casey in August and operates online and also works together in various phases in relief work in NOLA. There are several listserves and now a website at http://www.campcaseycommunity.org. I'm not involved here at Wikipedia, but suggest that this be added. Thank you. --Peacearena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.244.229 (talk • contribs) .
- If those forums are notable, they could be linked from the Camp Casey page, but not here as they don't necessarily involve Cindy Sheehan. --Habap 13:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sheehan's campaign against the Iraq War
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)
- 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)
Sorry, but I'm relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia and not sure how to pose this question... I came looking for background information. My recollection was that many of her relatives had served in the military, and that she was generally supportive of the service as a career--but that something changed, perhaps starting even before her son died. Shanen 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
First Picture
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)
Invalid IF THEN
The quondam implies that ‘regardless of the fact’ [id est. ‘ALTHOUGH’] that Sheehan was a DEMOCRAT and ‘questioned the urgency’, she did not protest the war before her son’s death. This logically implies that IF a Democrat AND ‘questioned urgency of the war’ THEN ‘active in the anti-war effort’. This does not follow.
Within the U.S. Senate 59% of Democrats voted for JOINT RESOLUTION 114. Within The House 40% of Democrats voted for JOINT RESOLUTION 114. Although it is clear that being a Democrat make a person statistically MORE likely to ‘question the urgency’ of the Iraq war, tis logically leap cannot be made absolutely.
The changes convey same factual information and meaning. Sheehan did not engage in “anti-war effort until after her son's death”. Changes remove prejudicial language and leave motivation and causation to be judged by the reader. Pands1016
Statements to Canadians
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)
It begins to show her international role in spreading teh message and breifly describes some of the events so far. I am researching more and will update as her tour continues. The part posted fit with the paragraphs above which showed concerns about misrepresentation of facts. It is another example ofa problem she has been having with credibility at times. Nicholas McLeod
- 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)
- 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)
This article needs inline citations
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)
Speaking out against the American contractors killed
I wish I could find the written source for this. Early this year, I was watching an independent cable TV channel that aired one of Sheehan's speeches to some anti-war group. The channel was called UCSB TV-I assume that stands for UC Santa Barbara? In the speech, she referenced the killings of four U.S. contractors back in the spring of 2004. She said that the contractors were not there to help the Iraqis re-build Iraq, they were there to cause harm to them. She called them "U.S. mercenaries". If anyone can find the full source for this-date, ___location, exact quote, and whom the speech was given to, please add it to the article. Can't add until full citation is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.200.240.19 (talk)
Photo credit
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)
Peace Mom
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)
- deleted here. rootology 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Shoot, thanks, nevermind. Yeah, Firefox choked. rootology 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Looking at the history, it seems the quote could turn into a revert war.. could somebody add both quotes perhaps? --Syd 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --Maniwar (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 [1] 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. --Maniwar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Marvel Comics character
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)
State of the Union
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)
- 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)
Recent interview
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)
Family Statement
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? Maniwar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Maniwar (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sick of the POV edits. Since when is Salon.com a reputable source??? Druge and MSNBC are reputable sources, however Salon is not. People, make the article better and stop the obvious POV edits. Go back and read Wiki's policies. This edit meets the requirement, and several 'reputable' sources are listed. Open your eyes and stop the bias. Instead of deleting, contribute to the NPOV mood that I'm trying to establish. --Maniwar (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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. --Maniwar (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani, your edits are clearly POV. What value does "but does not mention the individual names of these relatives" add to the article? This is a POV statement and is not mentioned in the news sources. Clearly you are removing NPOV statements and making them POV. Again, this article is being hit with POV from both sides and I realize that a person like Cindy makes it difficult to keep something neutral. However, your edits contribute to the POV stance. Clearly if you step back and take a look, you will see how you made this section now reads, quite more to your opinion. I do also believe that you have encroached on breaking the WP:3RR rule. Again, rather than inciting someone to edit your biased POV edits, try to help make it a neutral section. The section is about how, apparently, some of Sheehan's family have spoken out against her, not a rebuttal from her to why or who is speaking out against her. --Maniwar (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry campaign.
Why was the information regarding Cindy Sheehan being recruited by the Kerry Campaign removed?
- Maybe there was no reliable source? Badagnani 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Amazon link just added has no information about this. Also, don't you think it's POV to put the information about Kerry right at the very top of the article? Badagnani 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Badagnani - According to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible (which I did). Please justifiy why my changes do not fall within these guidelines.
- Also, what does putting new information at the very top of the article have to do with POV? durbinmj
- Clearly, it's because an Amazon link was provided that has no information about the sentence preceding it. Normally, if a book is quoted, a page number is given, and the bibliographic reference added. Thus, this addition is suspect as apparently no websites exist with information to back up this statement. Regarding the second, point, you know and I know that you don't believe what you are saying. Badagnani 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll cite the book using page #, etc. Second, I believe what I am saying and I still don't know what editing the very top of the article has to do with POV. Is it sacred ground or is it that as a supporter you don't want information that might be damaging to be "above the fold"? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durbinmj (talk • contribs)
- Cherry picking some random unflattering bit from her book and sticking it in the introdcution is POV. A dubious, inproperly cited claim that she was "recruited" by a presidental candidate is POV. Gamaliel 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for allowing the truth.....Durbinmj 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't exaggerate, or impute purported motives of other editors. The objection was strictly due to the lack of proper sourcing and the placement of this information in the lead paragraph. On another note, I don't recall that Kerry, in his last presidential campaign, advocated a "bring the troops home now" policy. In fact, I saw him on a debate just before the election, in Texas, stating that if he were president he would have sent *more* troops to Iraq, to do the job right. It just doesn't seem plausible that he would have wished to associate with Sheehan's extreme position at that time. Badagnani 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, as an Admin, you want to debate politics? Durbinmj 00:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also see that the admins change edits because they "cite right-wing sources," so I know that it's pointless to try anyway. Durbinmj 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk about tendetitous editing: removing "international" from "international attention", in (it's clear from the obvious axe-grinding above) to minimize Sheehan's attention in world media. Just a moment's googling turns up:
- Sydney Morning Herald -- 103 from smh.com.au
- The
GrauniadGuardian -- 792 from guardian.co.uk - BBC News -- 191 from news.bbc.co.uk
- Le Monde -- 99 from lemonde.fr
- Die Zeit -- 6 from zeit.de
- Times of India -- 8 from timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Not even close to justification for removing the word. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why didn't you link some of these that were published in August of 2005 rather than some list that can't be verified? I can find no sources that she had international attention in August of 2005. If I can't cite a book with out giving the exact page why can you cite a Google search without giving the search terms you used and if these results do factually show that she was receiving international attention in August of 2005. Durbinmj 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why didn't you link some of these that were published in August of 2005 rather than some list that can't be verified? Don't insult my intelligence -- you can run the damned search yourself easily enough. You DO have internet access, right? And you can work out the whole "typing-search-terms-into-the-search-field" technique they use at Google.com, right? Let me know if you have trouble figuring it out. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that the book cited is, in fact, true, a recruitment by the Kerry campaign is definitely not the most notable thing about her. I can't stand her and don't agree with her, but let her insanity stand on its own. --Habap 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the good POV. I think it does show the motivations, outside of the death of her son, for her activism and that is the only reason she has a page in Wikipedia. But, I respect that a proper cited entry is needed. Once I get that I'll try again. Durbinmj 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link to www.cindyfsheehan.com under Generally Opposed because the site is poorly constructed, has dead links throughout the site and does not qualify for verifiability according to Wikipedia (should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).
I can see that this is another example of Wikipedia's community (specifically Badagnani, Gamaliel and Calton) allowing their bias and not allowing the rules to be enforced fairly throughout. Anytime you have unverifiable statements and someone says run the "G--d---ed" search yourself and the statements are allowed to remain, you know that it's usless to even try to logic. You might want to go edit that cybersex page now Calton. Durbinmj 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone reading this that is as frustrated as I am check out Citizendium. It is created by one of Wikipedia's founders Larry Sanger and "will be open to submissions from anyone, but the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as to volunteer "constables" who will keep the peace between warring interests." [1] These articles have only become the opinion of those you can sit at their computer 24/7 and persist in changing the posts of those of us who have contributions as well. Also, the best part is it will require accountability with the use of real names instead of these people who go around changing crap with no accountability whatsoever. Durbinmj 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you are a new user, you might not be familiar with our rules such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, which prohibit such attacks and insinuations you have made against other editors on this page. Please do not make such comments again and please keep the discussion civil. Thank you. Gamaliel 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- What attacks and insinuations? I said that there is a bias and the rules are not being enforced fairly. I removed unverifiable statements and then was told that I had to go run the "G--d---ed" search myself to verify the facts. According to the Wikipedia policies you have cited, the burden of proof is on the author NOT the reader. No author has provided evidence to refute the changes I originally made. I have kept the discussion civil, talk to Calton about his comments. Durbinmj 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have attacked several editors by name and you have broken the WP:3RR repeatedly. Information has been posted on this talk page to substantiate the use of the word "international". Please do not continue to insult other editors, violate WP rules, and edit war over a single word. Gamaliel 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's like 1984 in here. All of a sudden Calton didn't say "G--d---ed" and no one attacked me. Nice editing guys. You can have this page, I give up. I thought I could contribute at Wikipedia but I don't have 24/7 to spend here editing history to make it look good for my bias. Durbinmj 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The word was "damned," not "goddamned," and you're correct in saying that the use of that word was not a good thing. Back to your edits: the justification behind the removal of "international" as regards news coverage at the time has turned out to be false and you attempted to insert an unsourced statement about Sheehan's purported connections to the John Kerry presidential campaign (implausible given the distance he maintained between himself and the "bring the troops home now" movement at that time). Of course you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but the two "pet issues" you have promoted here have not turned out to be valid, or enhance the article at all. I will forgive your impugning of several editors; sometimes editing can get heated but we try to avoid that. Badagnani 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
辛迪希恩 or 辛蒂希恩 = Cindy Sheehan in Chinese
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: [2][3][4][5] 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)
Mother Sheehan Buries Her Uterus in Texas
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)
Divorce, Sexual Promiscuity, Affair with Lew Rockwell
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)
POV TAG
I inserted a POV tag and will call for mediation if anyone deletes it. Here are the reasons I inserted the tag and I would like to discuss:
- The article is way too long and needs to be cleaned up, however the revert wars are too speedy on this article and instead of improving, people seem to revert. Thus, at this point cleanup is not allowed.
- The article is definately missing a criticism section. There needs to be a 1-3 paragraph section on this to cut down on clicks for readers/researchers. The spinoff article on Criticism can then be referenced and people can go and read that article for the rest, but a small section is needed. It's amazing how quickly a critical mention is rerverted with many breaking the 3RR rule. Rather than delete, it should be improved and tweaked.
- There is too much interpretation going on. For example see the conversation above about "Family" where many of Sheehan's family have spoken out against her. People are inserting interpretations and their opinions and removing what the article actually says to insert what they think it should.
- I believe the timeline should be spun off into its own article allowing more information to be placed in the article (i.e. #2 above).
I would really like to see much of this article condensed, cleaned up and be more bullet like. We don't need to journal her life, just hightlight and provide sources, references, etc. Also, a criticism section is definately needed and is missing in this article. I do agree that name calling needs to be left out and it needs to be clean, but all the same it needs to be allowed. What say all of you? --Maniwar (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Some of you who are apparently fairly new to editing at this article don't recall (though you're free to go through the edit history) that the article once consisted almost 50% various criticisms of Sheehan. Editors complained, as now, that "the article is too long and needs to be cleaned up" and that was moved to a new article entitled Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan. Further, the article also had a very comprehensive chronology of Sheehan's activities and some editors said that needed to be "cleaned up" and that was moved out to another article. At that time, some editors predicted that sometime in the future editors (motivated by the fact that they don't like what she did) would come here and try to "prove" that Sheehan's Camp Casey protest was never really big news and try to reduce the article, perhaps even to one sentence. I never believed that would happen so soon (not referring to the present editor, but the attempted removal of "international" from the lead paragraph was one such symptom. Badagnani 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- In regard to the Quartarolo email, when one sends a letter (or an email, for that matter) that is really from a group of people, one actually puts the names and/or signatures of those people at the bottom of the letter. In this case, it wasn't done and the qualification in the article makes this clear, although Sheehan acknowledges that the Sheehan side of her family (i.e. her former husband's side) is largely pro-Bush. But no family is 100% unanimous politically. A very minor point to claim POV over, I think, especially as the section is balanced in discussing the publicly stated views of other of Cindy Sheehan's family members. The point about there being no criticism in the article was a decision made via consensus by many editors over a period of many months, to move that into another article. That article is balanced between pro-Sheehan and anti-Sheehan comments. There, I believe we've resolved the "POV" issues. Badagnani 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Badagnani, I am not picking on you specifically, but I do not believe this is a good article. Again, the revert war both pro and anti is too much. The article is in fact not balanced and it is not a good resource. The main page needs to combine both good and bad. Perhaps a timeline of the events could be spun off to it's own article. This article needs much help, but the edit wars are frustrating. Go and look at another article of controversy like George Bush or Bill O'Reilly (the commentator) or Al Franken and you will see a better balance. Granted, some of them could use cleaning too, but they do a much better presentation than this one. Clean up is definately needed. I will edit my reasons to add a 4th one that perhaps the timeline could be split off into it's own article thus shortning the main for more "meat" rather than the fluff. Lastly, you again keep interpreting the article to say and influence the reader. The articles "don't say" the names are missing. If you want to state that, then it needs to be outside of the quote and maybe in a dispute section. Don't interpret the article be they pro or anti. --Maniwar (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe I did already explain that the timeline was removed to a separate article. What you notice about the lack of flow of the article probably results from the fact that it has been hacked to pieces by numerous editors on a constant basis since its inception (including, as discussed earlier, cutting entire sections out and moving them to other articles), but, if you've been editing this article for any length of time, you'll note that it has arrived in this state through the consensus of editors. Badagnani 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)