Jump to content

Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Rhetoric

On September 16, Sheehan likened the National Guard presence in New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina relief to that of occupied Iraq stating...

I was looking that up for other reasons. It appears it is somewhat out of context. She is referring to the troops being sent in to shoot to kill. While correct is breaking the NPOV imho. - Hobbes.

Archived

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

Re-write

Here's the re-write:

Sheehan and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Washington, nearly three months after her son's death. In a June 24, 2004, interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she expressed concerns about the president's changing justifications for war "every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached", as well as the way the war had been handled, but also told the reporter that President Bush was "...sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." In addition Mrs Sheehan's husband Pat, whom Cindy has said shares her views, said this about the meeting" "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us."[5]

On July 4, 2005 she was again interviewed by a local paper in Ft. Lewis, WA. [6] regarding her meeting with President Bush and completely changed her story. This time she descibed it as "one of the most disgusting experiences (she) ever had, and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." She described President Bush as being "detached from humanity" and said that "his mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all." She continued, "He didn’t even know our names," asking "Who we'all honorin' here today?" when he first entered the room, and then referring to her as "Ma" or "Mom".

Both Sheehan's supporters and detracters were at odds at how to reconcile these two disparate accounts until photographic evidence became available.

A photo was circulated on the internet, retrieved from the cache at Google of her personal website where it was apparently taken down, that shows President Bush and Cindy Sheehan holding hands at the meeting in question . She is leaning forward and he is kissing her on the cheek. This would appear to lend more credence to her first version of what happened as opposed to her second. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/hipaatwo/sheehan.jpg

That rewrite violated WP:NOR, and as such, I reverted most of it. If you'd like to let the picture speak for itself, I'd reccomend verifying it's copyright status, uploading it to wikipedia, and linking it to the article with the caption "Cindy Sheehan kisses president bush (during/after/before) their (date) meeting." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Hip,

This was in no way a violation of WP:NOR. This is NOT original research but rather I used DIRECT QUOTES from the article which you deleted for NO reason.

I'm gonna put them back in because they reinforce a crucial point that her story CHANGED.

Why did you take those quotes out in the first place?

Big Daddy 17:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I took out the quotes because you said she said her husband speaks for her without citing such. I deleted your conclusions about what the picture meant because they were your conclusions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


You need to read and adhere to WP:NPA. Nitpicking is an important part of editing an encyclopedia. If the evidence is "VERY VALUABLE," then you will be able to find someone to quote, rather than drawing said conclusions yourself. I told you how to get the picture included - verify it's copyright status, upload it to the encyclopedia, and include it in the article. The first word of his quote is we, but you asserted that she said he spoke for her, an assertion that remains your assertion. You will need to document such before it can be included in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


I think you make your POV very clear in your talk discussion. I removed the comment on Olberman because it is a non-notable ad-hominem attack. I don't think either the left wing media matters or the right wing media watchdogs are particularly respected outside their supporters. The quote you provided only claims that the quotation was taken out of context without demonstrating what the other context was, there was no link for the user to check up. It is difficult to imagine that either Limbaugh was quoted out of context or that there could be a redeeming context. Limbaugh routinely calls every opponent's supporters pot-smoking and calls female opponents Femi-Nazis. --Gorgonzilla 12:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"I removed the comment on Olberman because it is a non-notable ad-hominem attack." -Gorgonzilla

And you LEFT IN the quote FROM Olbermann about Rush limbaugh, drugs and ethics. Good thing, that's no "non-notable ad-hominem attack." No sirree.

Ps Liberals....they really do want Wik to slant left...don't they??

Big Daddy 18:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone jumped the shark quicker than Cindy Sheehan?

Thanks to Matt Drudge and Fox News revealing her true feelings about Israel and Bush, she's now got ZERO following.

My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left.

Sheehan as Rosa Parks???

I guess it just goes to show you can't change reality by manufacturing a fictional narrative in an encyclopedia, huh? Big Daddy 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll after poll in Israel has reported 60%+ majorities in favor of abandoning all the settlements in the West Bank. Sharon has become much more popular as a result of his recent moves, even though Likud are likely to dump him as their leader. So Sheehan is not that out of touch there. As for her comments on Bush, I think it is pretty clear that a significant proportion of the population share them, a proportion that has clearly grown after his response to Katrina was to continue his vacation and then go to California to dis Sheehan. --Gorgonzilla 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy, it's always fun to hear accusations of the left-wing wiki cabal. I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


Fo shizzle, my Kizzle. I always knew in my heart that, in Wikipedia, any conservative voice would be considered a troll. Thanks for confirming my suspcion.

BTW, do you libs all get the same talking points? I never suggested a left wing cabal. You guys aren't smart enough to form a cabal.

Yet this is the second or third time a Wacky Wiki has falsely accused me of such.

I guess what a former wikipedia EMPLOYEE said really was true, huh?

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sange

Ps Was he a 'troll' too? lol!

Big Daddy 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left
Uh, yeah you did suggest a left wing cabal. Read your own comments. And like I've said before, its not your conservative viewpoint that makes you a troll, but your persistant personal attacks. --kizzle 16:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

News articles about Cindy Sheehan/Criticism and support

What is the method to decide what links qualify as news article, and which articles qualify criticism or support? Isn't there enough overlap to place all but the driest and most analytical articles as being either in support or opposition? Otherwise, we risk classifying one position as "news" and the other as only "opinion."

MSTCrow 07:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle's cheap shot ad hominem attacks on me notwithstanding, I still feel there's a lot of work to do on this article. I'd like to see us address in greater detail how the media treated Cindy.

I'm working on a section that will document how the mainstream media propped Cindy up at the expense of the truth in order to embarass President Bush. There were numerous stories written about her when she first became a national figure that left the reader with the impression she had NEVER met with Bush. The news outlets who spewed this propaganda knew or should have known better.

There was also the smear campaign launched against Cindy's critics like Bill O'Reilly that ultimately resulted in these media sources being forced to write humiliating retractions and corrections. I know that at least the NY Times and SF Chronicle were forced to eat crow in this regard.

This whole area of the left leaning media using Cindy as their personal stalking horse, to say the things THEY really wanted to say about Bush thru Cindy and using her elevated status as a grieving mother for cover, is an intriguing field of inquiry and a CRUCIAL element to understanding how her story exploded onto the national scene, and just as quickly, disappeared...

Big Daddy 12:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that most of your proposed changes above are interpretations and opinions... so as long as you do not incorporate these claims into the text as true but attribute them (allegations of media using Cindy for their own political reasons, smear campaign) to notable sources, we're on the same page. --kizzle 14:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


Kizzle,

Good point. The best way to nPOV document is to provide links to dishonest articles and then their retractions/corrections. They are apparently legion in the case of Cindy...

Ps This is a different subject for a different day, but your use of the expression "notable sources" caught my eye. Personally, I don't believe Media Matters and Huffington Post are notable sources. Likewise, their right wing equivalents are not either. But here's what I've seen done to conservatives in their Wik articles - Provide quotes from Media Matters that are noting more than interpretations and opinions, but since they come from a putative 'notable source'...it stays in.

I don't want to play that game from the other political perspective, but if that's the way it's done in here, I will. I'm perfectly capable of finding a site that says what I want it to say and then sourcing it. In fact, on the Ann Coulter page, one Ann-hater simply wrote a press release HIMSELF and then sourced it as part of his litany of hate against her!

My preference is that ALL that kind of stuff stop!

Big Daddy 16:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

While both of the sites you describe are assuredly partisan, I'm not aware that the typical veracity of their posts are in question. Just because MediaMatters is definitively liberal, it doesn't mean they don't source and document their own reports. It is currently Wikipedia policy to allow inclusion of opinions as long as they are attributed to notable sources, so I'm not sure what "game" you are talking about. Mainly, don't just include everything you proposed to re-write unless you plan on sourcing it. --kizzle 16:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The assertion that a contributor on Ann Coulter wrote their own press release and then included it is not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly is. Big Daddy 07:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have been proven wrong, once again. Deal with it.

Web Commentary

Just added and refactored the many, many links (some duplicated), to help with proper categorization. I'm sure I must have mixed up one or two - apologies in advance. The giant, ever growing list of links was beginning to bug me, as it was growing like a cancer on the article proper. So, hopefully now it is more useful as a reference. --NightMonkey 19:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. --kizzle 19:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

27-12

Let's see...27 pro-Sheehan links versus 12 against her. Yep, that's good ol' fashioned NPOV balance all right...using Wiki's left-leaning math. (Actually, I guess I should be grateful it's not 27 to 0...) RMc

987-872

Oh my god! As of this posting there are only 872 words under the "SUPPORT" section of Sheehan, and 987(!) under the "CRITICISM" section. What a clear right-wing POV bias!

I presume RMc will be removing the necessary amount of words in the CRITICISM section until the article is balanced. Actually, using Wiki's right-leaning math, I should be grateful it's not 987-0, huh?

Come off it.

  • What do you mean? We can't even it down to exact words of support or criticism. Besides, I feel this article is as balanced as a controversial article can be. Although, I am really sad to see that she has more text than her SON does (but, as the nature of the media, there's not much more that can be said about the guy). --Mrmiscellanious 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an obvious attempt at clever mockery of the previous comment complaining about the large disparity between supportive and critical websites discussing Sheehan. The attempt failed due to the fact that: 1) The word count is quite close to one another, and 2) The disparity between pro- and anti-Sheehan sites was undeniably freakin' huge as of that writing. Hiddekel 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan - The Real Story?

Moved from Talk:Cindy Sheehan/to do

Cindy Sheehan - The Real Story? This was reportedly written by H.A. Brown, Author of Alive in the Spirit

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

The above text is given the status "False" on Snopes. —Brim 09:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shughart reference

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

- Both were publicly critical of the President and therefore are similar. Just because you don't see the similarity doesn't mean they aren't. There is more to Somalia then just being short and cheap. One of the reference posted is critical of both Shughart and Sheehan.

Why did you say I don't see the similarity? The two protests are similar. There are also aspects that are dissimilar, which I also pointed out. Badagnani 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

- then what is your issue with the reference?

The dissimilarities stated earlier. From the article you added, it seems that Shughart had an actual face to face encounter with the President at the time (the kind of meeting Sheehan was seeking). He said his piece about how he felt Clinton was responsible for his son's death, as Sheehan wanted to do. Then it was over, no extended campsite at Clinton's vacation home, etc. Perhaps the Sheehan affair would have received less notice had Bush met with her early on in her protest. I also find that the exact placement of the Shughart reference needs rethinking. Badagnani 21:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

- where would you place it? Yeah, I guess you're right, they are quite different; He being just a man grieving for his son, while she being an activist taking advantage of an opportunity. I personally think they are both wrong.


See my edit. Shugart was not angry at Clinton for his sons death. He was angry at clinton for pulling out of the war. This is well documented. Swatjester 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

This article seems to contain a large amount of unnecessary information that, while true, does not particularly belong in an encyclopedia. Consider, Cindy Sheehan's entry is longer than Abraham Lincoln's! The Chronology for her life in more detailed than WW II's (though with substantially less information per entry). Does anyone have justification as to why the article needs to contain inform about "U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and actress Margot Kidder visit[ing]..." her? (from the August 22, 2005 section) Unless a reason to keep such information can be given, I would like to trim the section back extensively. Thought 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is hilarious isn't it? But I wouldn't touch it right now. I think for current events Wikipedia becomes a clearinghouse for every contemporary news article about the subject. So instead of a short, concise encyclopedic entry, you get the play by play of how the "current" event played out. If someone were tasked to write an ariticle about her 10 years from now, I'm sure you would get your nice short encyclopedia article. Homoneutralis 17:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we might separate the chronology into its own article? Or, possibly, shift it over to Wikinews (though I am not sure if chronologies of news events are acceptable there) and provide an appropriate link? Certainly, if there is no way to avoid people from resurrecting this obese chronology after being thinned then there is no point in reducing it in the first place, but it is just so unnecessary. Thought 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Since no one has defended the chronology, I have cleaned up it to a fair extent. My aim was to remove unrelated or superfluous information so as to better conform to Wikipedia’s purpose as an Encyclopedia as opposed to a definitive work, as well as stated Wikipedian length recommendations. However, I did leave a significant amount of trivial information that, while having no historical or lasting importance, may provide useful in the short term. Specific comments on each instance of removal are contained below. If you believe that certain information should be returned to the article, please state how it relates to Sheehan and why it is of significant importance. Activism:

  • April 27th, 2005: No reason is given to assume that Sheehan did not in fact give the speech, nor can I find a source that calls it into question. Thus I removed the word “allegedly.”

Demonstration: Week 1

  • August 12th, 2005: Removed mention of Viggo Mortensen. While a fine actor, he is no more notable for supporting Sheehan than any other individual. Thus, unnecessary information.
  • August 12th, 2005: Removed mention of the motorcade. Nothing came of this, nor does it offer an understanding of the wider range of events unavailable in Sheehan’s other actions.

Week 2

  • August 13th, 2005: Removed mention of Camp Casey Chico. The Paradise Post article is misleading in that it implies 100 people were at Camp Casey Chico at any given time. Normal operating numbers were closer to 10. Additionally, the Children’s Park where it was held is a scant 300 ft from CSU, Chico, yet notably it lacked student support. The University’s newspaper (the Orion) mentions it only in passing.
  • August 19th, 2005: Bush’s # of vacation days belong, if anywhere, under his own article. It does not relate in the least to Sheehan.

Week 3

  • August 20th, 2005: Bush’s campaign to defend the War better belongs under his own article. It does not directly or indirectly concern Sheehan.
  • August 21, 2005; Removed Joan Baez’s performance at Camp Casey. The event is unimportant to Sheehan’s message. The August 20th events were left, though similar in nature, since it was significantly larger and thus might be supposed to have had a larger impact. It also contained speeches by individuals of greater significance than Baez.
  • August 22, 2005: Boots are hardly noteworthy.
  • August 25th, 2005: Boots are hardly noteworthy.

Week 4

  • Though Hurricane Katrina does not directly relate to Sheehan, I left it since it was a major national event and diverted media attention away from Sheehan’s actions. As such, I also left events related to the Hurricane.

Bus Tour Week 1

  • August 31st, 2005: Bush’s tour is better included in his own article or that on the Hurricane. It does not relate to Sheehan in the least.
  • September 2nd, 2005: Sheehan wasn’t even present. Not important, and not related.
  • September 3rd, 2005: Connections between the Iraq War and Katrina better belong in either the Anti-War article, the Iraq War article, or the Katrina article. Sheehan’s importance in this event is minor.
  • September 5th, 2005: These stops are neither noteworthy nor important.

Bus Tour Week 2

  • September 8th, 2005: Jane Fonda is hardly an important figure, and in this case is notable for NOT doing something. If it belongs on wikipedia at all then it belongs under her article, not Sheehans.
  • September 9th, 2005: What makes this highway accident more important than any other accident in the United States on a given day? Note notable.
  • September 10th, 2005: Comments in Athens, Georgia, are common across the spectrum. Nigh everyone in America wants to support the troops and bring them home (eventually). Hardly unique to Sheehan.
  • September 11th, 2005: Leaving the Pittsburg comments seems almost seems like a Republican-Bias, and if others believe so please feel free to remove it, but it does contain a significant look at Sheehan’s views and thus I left it.
  • September 11th, 2005: Despite the large turnout, the Detroit stop produced no results or significant developments.

Bus Tour - Week 3

  • Only one entry was noteworthy.

Thought 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for posting so many comments in a row, however it seems appropriate to respond to Badagnani's reversion of my changes. The provided explanation is little more than the Bandwagon Logical Fallacy. To my knowledge I followed standard Wikipedia guidelines. I indicated the problems with the section in advanced, I provided reasoning for those changes, and my edits were aimed to bring the article closer to wiki length recommendations. If there is fault in my actions, please let me know. For a detailed response, please see my comments in Badagnani's talk page. Thought 19:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry your changes were rejected - it can hurt if you take it too personally, but, for me, that's part of the thrill. I think that your changes may be a bit severe, and I generally agree with Badagnani's reasoning for keeping this section primarily as it is. However, you might narrow your edits to obviously editorialy defensible redactments or prunings - it might help your edits to be accepted more readily, rather than an edit with such a large scope.
Also, I've found that 24 hours notice isn't really fair to those editors who don't hop on every day or night to check their watchlists. Since no one was going to die if your edits didn't get made quickly, I'd set a loose limit to something more like 72 hours for responses. But, that's not policy or guideline, just my opinion. Have fun! --NightMonkey 22:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronology -> Short Paragraphs

As part of task 3, I am going to begin boiling down sections of Chronology into short paragraphs. The initial purpose of the chronology was so that we could separate the initial view points debates from what was happening day by day. I did not want to lose references to good articles on what was happening. However, as things become history, we can take what happened and boil it down into a good, tight paragraph. I envision one paragraph for Casey Sheehan, her initial activism, Camp Casey, one paragraph on the Bus Tour, one paragraph on the Washington Demonstation and subsequent arrest.

Today, I will begin with Casey Sheehan. Here is the before code:

=Casey Sheehan=

Kgrr 12:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I took your text, put it into the Casey Sheehan article, and then further boiled this to a single paragraph. I believe it conveys all the relevant information while leaving the details (second Eagle Scout in his Troop) to his own article. Also, decided having it display "QRF" was a confusing acronym instead of helpful - having the words makes it more meaningful. --Habap 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I will boil down the Activism paragraph... Here is the before code:

=Activism=

Friends and family of Cindy Sheehan hold a photo of Casey Sheehan at an anti-war demonstration in Arlington, Virginia on October 2, 2004.

Kgrr 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Mayor Ed Koch Cites Wikipedia!

Longtime democratic former mayor of New York, Ed Koch, as self described liberal has written an op-ed piece about Cindy Sheehan in which he LIBERALLY quotes Wikipedia!

This may not be as exciting for some of the long timers as it is for me, but it's the first time since I began working here that I saw Wik quoted so profusely as an authortative source. I hope we continue to earn our mettle as a highly respected and credible reference source.

Since Mayor Ed Koch was so nice to quote wik in his piece, I'm gonna extract some noteworthy comments he's made about Cindy for our article. A famous mayor of New York quoting Wikipedia. That's awesome! Big Daddy 02:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/koch.php3

It's gonna be tough do that, as you were recently banned for life from Wikipedia. Consider that a gift from me. Eleemosynary 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there seem to be a fair number of broken links to outside sources in this article. I attempted to confirm each one. However, since a failure to connect might be bad luck on my part I wanted to post them here for independent confirmation before actually removing them. Also, if these links are deemed important, this provides a nice list so that new sources might be tracked down. If someone confirms that a link is down, please sign under the appropriate area (and remove it from the article, if you would be so kind). Thought 06:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove any of these links. I know I don't have time right now to try each one. I tried one and it worked fine. You should try them again yourself to see if the links are actually bad or you just couldn't reach the articles the time you tried. Homoneutralis 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Which one did you try? I rechecked about 5, choosen at random, and they all either bring up a "page not found" or indication that the article is not longer hosted at that particular address. I used a totally different internet connection as well (home connection prior, university connection now). But of course, the reason for posting them here was for others to verify before removing. Though, most certainly, at least one aught to be removed (2nd from last, sept 10th), and I would be most ammused if one could construct an argument otherwise.
Thought 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, most are broken, I guess 36 is the one that I tried and that one works for me. Homoneutralis 01:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Under Background, the link following St. Mary's Church. [24]
  • Under Political Activism, currently the 6th paragraph, second sentance, first link to the Washington post. [25]
  • Under Rhetoric, end of 8th paragraph, a link to a movie file.[26]
  • Under Reactions, 3rd paragraph (quoted material). [27]
  • Under Reactions, 5ht paragraph (quoted material) [28]
  • Under Reactions, 6th paragraph (right below the last one). [29]
  • Note, I am not a member at the New York Times and as such I could not confirm the next link, one way or the other. [30]
  • Under Support, 4th paragraph. I am not sure if this was the intended link or not since while the link connects it is not to a news source but rather a feedback form for MoveOn.org [31]
  • Under Parents of other military personnel killed in Iraq (first installment), 2nd paragraph (quoted line). [32]
  • Note, I am not a member at Mercury News and as such I could not confirm the link under Parents of other military personnel killed in Iraq (first installment), second to last paragraph. [33]
  • Under Criticism, Media Personalities, end of 5th paragraph, Sheehan's communications with a blogger. The link works but I couldn't find the referenced material. [34]
  • Under Parents of other military personnel killed in Iraq (Second installment), 6th paragraph (quoted material from Natalie Healy). [35]
  • Under Parents of other military personnel killed in Iraq (Second installment), following paragraph of the above, cnn article. [36]
  • Under Chronology, Activism, first link (I'm crying for all the other mothers). [37]
  • Under Chronology, Activism, right before “Two things in Bush's speech ‘enraged’ Sheehan.” CNN article. [38]
  • Under Chronology, August 11th, Cindy Sheehan’s open letter. [39]
  • Under Chronology, August 12th, memorial of crosses. [40]
  • Under Chronology, August 13th, counter protest, second link. [41]
  • Under Chronology, August 14th, dove shooting, first link. It connects but it seems to only display recent news. [42]
  • Under Chronology, August 14th, dove shooting, second link. [43]
  • Under Chronology, August 16th, move closer to Ranch [44]
  • Under Chronology, August 18th, link connects but no content seems to be present. [45]
  • Under Chronology, August 20th, Bush’s campaign. [46]
  • Under Chronology, August 20th, "Fort Qualls”. [47]
  • August 21, Joan Baez [48]
  • August 21, bomb threat, second link. [49]
  • August 22nd, Margot Kidder, last one, again I cannot confirm this link. [50]
  • Aug 22nd, Sac Bee, not a member so I can’t confirm. [51]
  • Aug 22nd, Camp Reality, [52]
  • Aug 25th, bus tour, first link [54]
  • Aug 27th, conflicting estimates, cannot confirm 1st link [55]
  • Aug 27th, Russell Means, 2nd link. [56]
  • Aug 28th, 1st link. [57]
  • Aug 29th, Banks, first link. [58]
  • Aug 31st, Bush’s tour of region [59]
  • Sept 3rd, Sheehan cancels, 1st link [60]
  • Sept 3rd, Minneapolis, Minnesota, [61]
  • Sept 5th, 2nd link [62]
  • Sept 10th, Athens, Georgia. Actually, this one links to a wikipedia edit page but it makes more sense to change all these at once.
  • Sept 12th, Westfield, New Jersey [63]

"Criticism of the Critics"

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

Protesting FOR Islamists....

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

Casey Sheehan's Grave (again)

Once again, I am commenting on the subject of Casey Sheehan's grave. I see now there there is absolutely no mention of headstone, instead of poor mentioning. I see that the page is semi-locked, but this whole section has been deleted. [[ Cindy Sheehan]] didn't add a headstone to her son's grave for 2 years after he died. That is relevant to the article because it beings a little hypocrisy to her message about how much she loved her son, and where her reasons are for being such an activist. If no one knew about her before this grave incident, anyone with an email address knew about her after that email circulated around the internet describing who she is and the fact her son's headstone was MIA. I am sure many people who have looked her up have looked her up after reading that email.

The whole affair is documented on snopes.com [64]. I would be glad to write the section and add it to the article, but it's almost a waste of time if this article keeps getting edited and whole sections taken out without discussion. Can someone with more experience please advise? Chexmix53 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The context provided by the snopes article provides plenty of reasonable explanations beyond a blanket charge of "hypocrisy". A dispute with a mortuary doesn't deserve an entire section in an encyclopedia article, nor should we be providing a sopabox for those who with to use a minor dispute to attack someone. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that she was so 'outraged' by the war in Iraq and that her outrage was sparked by the death of her beloved son was shadowed by the fact that she didn't even take the time or the money to put a grave marker on her son's grave until it was discovered that she hadn't done it. The marker still probably wouldn't be there to this day if she wasn't put under the spotlight of this email. You can not have a whole article about how upset she is about the war, and how upset she is about her son's 'necklace death' if you don't offset it by putting both sides of the argument in the article. That makes the article disputable on it's neutrality and makes it a lopsided article. It's wasn't just the dispute about the mortuary, it was the whole thing. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What argument? All you've provide is your personal interpretation of these minor events. That is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sheehan's influences were brought under fire again when in 2006, an email was widely circulated via the internet and various networking sites that brought attention to the fact that Casey Sheehan's grave did not have a formal headstone (at the time this email started being circulated, it had been over two years since his death). In April of 2006, after these emails were brought to Sheehan's attention, she made a statement that alluded to the fact that she was grief stricken and couldn't bring herself to put his death in marble. She spoke about visiting his grave "almost on a daily basis". Later it was stated that the reason the formal tombstone wasn't added to his grave was because of a disagreement over money paid, or not paid to the cemetery. On May 26, 2006, a formal headstone was placed on Casey Sheehan's grave.
Referenced from Snopes.com, which was referenced from The Vacaville Reporter and truthout.org Considering the first sentence in this article refers to the death of her son and the aftermath of that being her dedication to vindicating his death, this is relevant. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to add this if no one else can present a good reason not to... Chexmix53 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that you can demonstrate that a "widely circulated email" is important and encyclopedic enough to be included, your version has terrible POV issues, most notably in how you put the actual facts of the event as an afterthought to your spin on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no spin, those were the events that unfolded after the email. There is nothing in the article that makes her look anything less than an angel and that is not right when there are all these truths out there. It's not that the email should be inserted in the article, the facts should be, and that just happens to me the medium that brought this story to light. It's not just an email, it's something that happened that got publicized in the email. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If your paragraph was really about the events and not the email, then it would have discussed the actual events, not tacked them on the end as an afterthought to a recounting of the email's spin. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok: Sheehan's influences were brought under fire again when in 2006, attention was brought to the fact that Casey Sheehan's grave did not have a formal headstone. In April of 2006, after public curiosity over the event was brought to Sheehan's attention, she made a statement that alluded to the fact that she was grief stricken and couldn't bring herself to put his death in marble. She spoke about visiting his grave "almost on a daily basis". Later it was stated that the reason the formal tombstone wasn't added to his grave was because of a disagreement over money paid, or not paid to the cemetery. On May 26, 2006, a formal headstone was placed on Casey Sheehan's grave.
Referenced from Snopes.com, which was referenced from The Vacaville Reporter and truthout.org Considering the first sentence in this article refers to the death of her son and the aftermath of that being her dedication to vindicating his death, this is relevant. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy section

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

I cleaned things up a bit

I tossed alot of irrelevant stuff. Please refer to Pres. Bush not Bush.Geo8rge (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, part II

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

Crawford Peace House

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

Huh?

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cindy_Sheehan/Archive_3&oldid=841472174"