Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Sock puppets

67.76.228.3 (talk · contribs), 65.40.165.215 (talk · contribs), 65.40.165.92 (talk · contribs), DrAlbertHofmann (talk · contribs), and 24.106.184.50 (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person playing games. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I'm not sure the anon doesn't have a point, even if s/he's wrongly labeling the re-additions as "vandalism." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the "point". The term "peace camp" and "peace mom" are widely used in the states. In fact, Fox News today referred to her as the "peace mom". The anon is removing valid information from the article. Sorry, but I don't see the "point". —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Viriditas on this. I personally don't like her, but she is referred to as the "Peace Mom" whether we agree with it or not. Similarly George Herman Ruth is referred to as Babe Ruth, whether we think he was either kind of babe or not. --Habap 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My issue is the possible POV issues with it. I can easily link to a good number of notable blogs and people who call her "Mama Moonbat," but I'm not sure we'd want that in here, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think her being called "Peace Mom" is fairly widespread, and that it probably deserves a mention in the article. Numerous real news sources (read: not blogs) have referred to her as that title, so I believe it's notable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel as strongly about it as I did the stuff above, but I'm apparently in a stark minority about it anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloggers (conservative or otherwise) are not nearly as "mainstream" and I would bet that they actually have several disparaging names for her. --Habap 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are probably all me (I don't know exactly but I have access to over 30 IPs), anyway I'm just learning Wikipedia, I'm not playing games...well maybye there was one edit that was a tounge in cheek after I was getting frustrated with this thing. Anyway now that I know that there is a discussion here I won't get as frustrated if I can see why people are doing what they are doing.

OK, now all that being said my point about the bias is closest to what Badlydrawnjeff has said. People in the media have called her a "traitor", I'd guess more then "Peace Mom"...would that be reasonable to put in the introductory paragraph as well? I think not. DrAlbertHofmann 09:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends. For example, see Benedict Arnold. Let's see your citations. Oh, and since you admit using multiple accounts, I suggest you stick to one when you make reversions, otherwise you will find all of your accounts blocked. —Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE. I recognize you are trying to give good advice, but the tone is a little unfriendly in the context of Hofman's previous line. Derex 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how would you phrase the requisite warning? —Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to your good manners. I simply wanted to bring to your attention what I thought might have been an unintended tone; I may have been mistaken about your intent. If so, my apologies. Derex 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm always trying to improve myself. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please review my proposed replacement for the chronolgy of the four weeks of demonstrations. Note that the explicit chronology with microscopic detail still exists over at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas, so no information is being "lost". I think we especially need Badagnani's approval on this (to avoid a revert war). Hopefully, it can reviewed in the next 6-8 hours, so we can replace those section before I leave for the weekend. --Habap 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is truth determined by democracy?

There is a problem with the three edit rule. In attempting to add reasonable balance to the Sheehan article any changes are quickly washed away by a sea of people who are clearly Sheehan supporters. Worse the administrators on Wikipedia cleary have a liberal bias and while my IP was blocked previously for a fourth edit I see people who are adding liberal spin or remove balanceing edits able to post again and again and again and again and again, etc. (way more then 3).

Bias alone is not a problem, everyone has bias...but geez shouldn't an effort be made to at least give the appearance of an attempt at neutrality?

The article reads in places as if it were written by Sheehan's PR people. Come on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrAlbertHofmann (talk • contribs) .

Your latest edit is a blatant violation of WP:3RR. You aren't fooling anyone with your sock puppets. —Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about addressing the point instead of quoting the LAW? - DrAlbertHofmann 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the point, namely your violation of 3RR by the use of multiple accounts. —Viriditas | Talk 10:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think this article is biased "for" Sheehan? /Clutches head in agony. Derex 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that there is a slight bias in favor of Sheehan in the article. I expect it will slowly balance out over time. I think that it is reasonable, though slightly pro-Sheehan. --Habap 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to even it out myself, but all my edits have been reverted by Badagnani Squiggyfm 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you folks please list the "bias" here, so we can work it out once and for all? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read the whole thing and the only part I found odd as the "criticism of the critics" part. So, I withdraw my "slightly biased" statement. Derex, do you think it is biased against her? --Habap 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say that I'm no longer involving myself in this article; I just happened to check back and saw a question directed to me. I am simply not interested in editing a page with so much instantaneous reversion and WP:OWN syndrome (not directed at everyone). Rather than a detailed point-by-point, I'll just direct you to look at the article length. On my browser, I see less than one page explaining why she's important ... her campaign against the war. I see about 1/3 of a page on support. I see about 2 1/2 pages of criticism. Either explicit under the criticism heading, or implicit throught a bunch of quotes explicitly selected as those that inflamed her critics (see my comments under "public statements" (which got archived just a minute ago). I am an equal-opportunity critic on this, as you can see by the Ann Coulter talk page; and this article is far worse, for a far less controversial figure (see also Bill Frist).

Nick's criticism (also archived now) was dead on. Look at other articles on wikipedia. They tend to actually be encyclopedic. They spend a bit of time explaining what the person has done, and why she is notable. If there are critics, they summarize the criticism. If there are suppporters, they summarize the support. Basically this article needs an enema. It reads like it was written by a bunch of partisans battling it out in a tit-for-tat, and has grown into a ridiculously detailed enumeration of the reasons she pisses people off. Ironically, the chronology got moved, and rightly so as it was unencyclopedic. But, at least it was actually about what the woman has done, and why she is notable. I'm completely serious when I say this article is one of the very worst on the whole site, and I've been involved in cleaning up some god-awful political articles. We cover the entire impeachment of Bill Clinton in one page, and it's a reasonably good article. It will become a far worse article the day someone turns it into something like this (and I have no doubt that will happen).

The article sucks, because it's not an encyclopedia article. Imagine how it would read if written by, say, a Japanese person (e.g. basically disinterested). That's how it should read both in phrasing, content, and volume. Good luck with it. Derex 15:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Now I understand. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between some of the political rants (someone wanting to get rid of the article because they disagree with her) from the substantive comments (that the article doesn't match the style of the rest of Wikipedia). With the creation of more sub-articles, it is getting to be more like an encyclopedia entry (and provide less fodder for argument), but it may be a long haul to get there. --Habap 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace camp

I would appreciate it if some folks here would also review, edit and enhance the article on peace camps. --Habap 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And could someone fix the anti-war box, it has fubared-up the alignment.Squiggyfm

Support and Criticism of Cindy Sheehan

Cleaned up, but will probably get reverted. I took Everything from "Support" up to "Chronology" and put it in Support and Criticism of Cindy Sheehan. Links are for all to enjoy. Squiggyfm 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous!!! Derex 16:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot to sign Squiggyfm

Excellent work, Squiggy. --Habap 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank ya. Also, all external links (all 4.5 million of them) are on their own External Links Cindy Sheehan. The page is finally looking pretty good. Just as long as we can fix the alignments at the top.Squiggyfm 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is a few people will have a problem with all of this. I personally haven't made up my mind yet. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A problem with me moving things, or a problem with the alignments at the top? For the record, my edits were done without ill-will. Just trying to make it more legible, without having to search through 15 pages to find the information you're looking for. The info is still there, just moved. Squiggyfm 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with the movements, but I think the external links should probably stay here and be severely trimmed down. There's really no need for that many links, and it could probably be cut back considerably and fit in the main page without a page becoming a link repository. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An issue with the moving things. The alignment can always be tweaked to work, but the movement kind of decimates the article. Trust me... people will oppose this split. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There will always be people who oppose anything done to this article. Question is, it is in the best intrests of the article and is it in violation of any rules? IMHO, yes and no. Of course, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong;-)Squiggyfm 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the move definitely wasn't against the rules. You followed WP:BOLD perfectly. The problem is the other thing... people's opinions. A couple of regular Cindy Sheehan editors are going to take umbrage with the move. I still haven't gotten a chance to look over it fully to form my own opinion. I just know some people are going to complain. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of regular Cindy Sheehan editors are going to take umbrage with the move.

At which point, the page will be reverted, and this vicious cycle will start anew! How about we just create a Cindipedia? Any and all things Cindy! Squiggyfm 18:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• This comment shows bad faith. Badagnani 19:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Which part?

• Quote of an earlier statement
• Outcome of said quote
• Conclusion of the outcome
• Joke (based on the observation that some people think everthing should be in one massive page)

Squiggyfm

I disagree with the move. You swept the most important stuff under the rug. Honestly we dont need to know every single little detail about her campaigns. We all know she is against the war. Is it really necessary to have the details of her european anti war tour? They are all the same. I think you should delete that and put the support and critism back on the first page.

JJstroker 06:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles

As someone who has not been involved so far in editing this article can i say that it is starting to look much better then it used to. However, with the sub-articles I think though that rather then just having nothing other then a see main article thingy, summaries of those articles should be contained here. Wikipedia:How to break up a page may be of help in cutting this page down and making it more encycopedic in style.--JK the unwise 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One paragraph about Texas protest

Only one paragraph remains in the article about the Texas ranch protest ("Camp Casey"), the key event among Sheehan's activities. The paragraph makes it appear that Sheehan was the only one there, in a tent by the side of the road, when in fact it was much larger than this, with a huge media circus. Editors new to the article, and those with agendas to downplay Sheehan's activities and significance, are eager to remove information from the article, and have been doing so with great enthusiasm. But in doing so, the information that remains must still accurately reflect what happened. As it stands today, the article does not do so, because whoever removed the Camp Casey chronology did not accurately summarize these events in the text of the remaining article. This either shows laziness or an agenda to simply wish these events to be "forgotten." Not everyone will click through to the numerous external articles that have been created to "purge" this page of the "meat" of information that most people will be coming here to learn about in the first place. You have your work cut out for you. If this is not done, original text will be promptly restored. Badagnani 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When I set up the chronology pages, I simply copied what was on the original page. If something wasn't there before, it tweren't my fault, as I didn't delete anything. Thanks for getting up on a soapbox and peaching to us though. Lord knows I enjoyed it! Squiggyfm 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you enjoyed it? Oh wait... ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've brought in the text I'd been working on at the end of last week to paragraph-ize the 4 weeks of Camp Casey. I also copied and re-worked the introductory paragraph from the bus tour. I hope that folks will feel free to edit these. I don't think the Camp Casey stuff flows particularly well, since it had been extracted from the chronology rather than written from scratch.

This had been discussed a bit last week and was worked on at User:Habap/Chronology. --Habap 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chronology + External Links

Okay, two things:

1) I've changed the rest of the chronology into paragraph form consistent with the rest of the article. I tried not to remove any significant information, so I'm not sure how well it reads or if my tenses are 100% correct.

2) I'm going to start trimming back some of these external links. I won't remove anything controversial, but WP isn't a link dump, and there's no reason why a lot of those links need to be there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we all need to work on your second point. These links are waaay out of hand. Yesterday, I went through and removed all the busted links, etc. but we still have some way to go. I would say shoot for maybe around 6 or 7 pro and 6 or 7 con, plus a few of the articles and interviews. That would give us a grand total of around 20 external links (a fairly good-sized number). Not everything she says has to get its own external link. Not every criticism has to get its own external link. Maybe find some way to incorporate them into the main body of the article? Just my thoughts. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I eliminated some that were already in the main article, such as at least a few of the interview links, and tried to consolodate others, such as putting the DemocracyNow/Hitchens/Malkin on one line. I could certainly look to eliminate more, but I don't want to be accused of anything sinister. Unfortunately, DemocracyNow/CommonDreams don't have a single catchall link for her contributions, which makes it a little more difficult to clean up on their own. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't look at exactly which links were removed and which ones were kept, but the sheer number looks much better. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

renewed suggestion: rewrite the entire thing

I got archived, so I assume my previous entry was a bit too lengthy. Here's a brief excerpt:

"...Think about it, if you had never heard of Sheehan, and you came to this article, is that what you'd want to read? Even early on in the article, it reads more like an investigation of Sheehan instead of an informational peace...A lot of [the article] lacks relevance [significance]. The criticism part is what makes it less encylopedic."

In short, this should not present every single criticism/defense of Cindy Sheehan. That serves the authors, not the readers. Instead, generalize it in a few sentences in each side. Think about what would make a good article, not just what would make a good canonical archive of every time her name was ever mentioned in any media.

(Nicholas Mann 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

I tend to agree, I mean look at this line:

After a short trip back home to California, Sheehan said on October 24 during a media interview[48]that she planned to speak at the White House and then tie herself to the fence, promsing to return to the fence as soon as possible if arrested.

Honestly, why is this in here? Why is a statement she made on something she planned to do, regardless if she did it or not (which I beleive she did).

Or this line:

Later in the evening, she attended a play written by Dario Fo (Literature Nobel laureate) about her [53], in which the role of Sheehan was played by Frances de la Tour.

The only people are need this information are the people who are already on her side of the fence and therefore are already aware of this information. So its moot and pointless to have it in the article, IMHO. Does anyone need to know what play she attended one night, regardless if it had someone portraying her in it? Was it important enough in Sheehan's life to mention in here? Why don't we mention the night President Bush viewed Fahrenheit 9/11 or the night President Clinton saw Deep Throat. HA! (That last part was a joke, don't hate me for it...I had to.)

There is A LOT of fluff in this article, from both sides. It needs to be cleaned up into a NPOV and that doesn't mean a LPOV followed by a RPOW (does it?). However, I feel that everytime someone tried to edit this page for the betterment of the article, someone takes that as a direct shot at what they beleive, call the editor a fascist, and revert it.

Now, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Squiggyfm 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think small attempts to make this article better will suffer reverts. Someone ought to rewrite the entire thing and present a heavily trimmed-down version of all the information here. Hopefully it will be so well written that people won't be revert nazis.

(Nicholas Mann 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Final Paragraph

Why is the final paragraph (Sheehan's t-shirt controversy at the State of the Union Address) in present tense? --buck 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor style I'd assume. Feel free to fix it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

on POV

Dig this: "There is A LOT of fluff in this article, from both sides. It needs to be cleaned up into a NPOV and that doesn't mean a LPOV followed by a RPOW"

[-Squiggyfm]

There's a lot to this. This article, or any article of such a polar issue, should not be a battleground. I'd reccomend summaries and qualitative lists of her impact on politics, and not quantitative lists of every complaint/defense ever lodged about her.

(Nicholas Mann 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

move to Africa

You make me sick wearing your veterans for peace where did you serve in our military you are a discrace to this country up there hugging that black man thats just as bad as you niether one of you served in military but you call yourselves veterans ,veterans of what war you all need to support our troops or move to Africa with the rest of your friends you think so much of you son is probably so ashamed of you about now because he was a brave soldier fighting for his country an you are making it some kind of ebony and ivory love game mixing races no wonder your husband got rid of you and also you should leave president Bush alone he is trying to protect this country not make it look like abunch of cowards live here just go on to Africa you will be around more people you like better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdfish (talk • contribs)

Note on the Rcdfish comment: Gee - how do you live with so much hate? And how do you survive without any knowledge of the English language, including spelling, grammar and punctuation. I guess your pResident would be proud that you butcher the language as much as he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.124.192 (talk • contribs)

I note that this comment has been posted on Democratic Underground. [1] . BlueGoose 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sheehan Moved to Berkeley

I just got through editing the article and noted her residence as Berkeley, California [2] Neanderthalprimadonna 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The best line in that article is Sheehan said that when she told Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia that she had moved to Berkeley, he laughed and said, “Well, of course you did.” Good find, Neanderthalprimadonna. --Habap 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)