Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Cindy Sheehan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandalism

The attacks continue...

An anonymous user, 4.228.90.146, is the latest vandal intent on POV and has violated Wikipedia's 3-revert rule. Please ban him/her.

(See Article Summary below Soltak 00:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This same user has also tried to vandalize this very page in order to replace his/her name with a non-vandal's. A check of the history page should confirm this.

Search results for: 4.228.90.146

OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc. OrgID: LVLT Address: 1025 Eldorado Blvd. City: Broomfield StateProv: CO PostalCode: 80021 Country: US

Not sure if that is right.

August 21 -- vandalism from 24.26.61.0 -- s/he has been warned. Badagnani 18:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

71.133.246.254 is making edits that are causing the back end database to crash out, suggest immediate termination with extreeme prejudice.

August 26 -- vandalism from 67.169.135.141 (adding "anti-American" as fact in opening paragraph). User has been warned.Badagnani 19:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

August 26 -- vandalism from 68.211.50.167. Same vandalism as 67.169.135.141 so likely sockpuppet. User has been warned. Badagnani 19:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to have been vandalized again. All I see is the word "bitch" though I see no history for such a change. Any ideas how it happened? - 24.7.186.18 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Critics section

Why is there a section that breaks down "critics" person-by-person? I've never seen this done on any of the 4900+ other articles I've ever edited. Half of these folks are from Fox News. Shouldn't they all be clumped under one title, ie "Rupert Murdoch"? Seriously though, this section is ridiculous. At the very least, the subheading names need to be elminated, and probably most of the quotes can be trimmed down or removed without losing any information. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 03:51

Don't lose too much sleep over balancing this out. I think readers understand that this is a current event being discussed on a message board, and is subject to excessive details from passionate voices on either side. --Philosophistry 03:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed most of the unnecessary quotes. If people want quotes, they need only click the citations. I've also removed the subheadings and the criticisms from random unknowns (although I've heard of Fred Barnes, he is by no means as notable as Drudge, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:14

Excellent points. The "Critics" section had become a transparent campaign to discredit the article's subject through a "data dump" of Fox/Drudge/National Review smears. The full transcript of G. Gordon Liddy's (!) smear on Sheehan took the section from the deplorable into the laughable. Thanks for fixing it.

User:Pencil Pusher (who has made all of 42 edits) has made the most POV edit I've ever seen. Somehow, this user has fluidly converted the section from "criticisms" into "accusations", and endorsed all of these views as legitimate based on their existence alone! What a feat! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:21

have you read the section? actually read it? cause I have news for you, the POV you think i have is exactly wrong. Pencil Pusher 04:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NPOV. Do you even realize how ridiculous your edits are? It's extremely POV before the reader even gets to the content. Don't you realize this? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:30

Nice. You admit the content is NPOV, but the very existance of the section is POV. Very Nice. See my other comment below. Pencil Pusher 04:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Pencil Pusher: I get a kick out of reverting pathetically POV edits. So, if you manage to sneak any of your nonsense past Brian, I'll be happy to revert it. And Brian: You are doing excellent yeoman's work keeping the page honest. "Pencil Pusher" realizes exactly what he's doing, and should seek work writing captions on Fox News. -- Eleemosynary

I'm trying very hard to not call you both names. CS has been slimed by the right wing media. They have pulled out the stops to trash her. This is very much a part of the story. If either of you WOULD HAVE BOTHERED TO READ THE SECTION you would have seen that ever single right wing slime was, in a total NPOV fashion, discredited. Reading comprehension is your friend. Pencil Pusher 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice Try, Pencil Pusher. Sorry; it won't wash. Here's an idea: Try not publishing discredited smears. That helps to, um, discredit them. Yeesh. And, by the way, I DID READ THE SECTION (see, I can use CAPS LOCK too) and you made NO MENTION that the SMEARS were DISCREDITED. -- Eleemosynary

yes, that would be violating NPOV. To say bill o'reily was talking out of his ass would be inappropriate. Instead I put each criticsm into context so... get this... so the reader can decide whether the criticsm was warranted. Pencil Pusher 04:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what you did was to attempt to legitimize the smears, and then attempt to hide behind "hey, I was just letting the reader decide" nonsense. Sort of like "We report; you decide," huh?

Hey, man. You got caught. Sucks for you. Get over it.

No, what sucks is that there are so many of you who are so dense and so paranoid that you can't even recognize a friend. Pencil Pusher 05:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at my history of edits before you say "nice try" for example: changing

In interviews about this meeting given more than a year later she states that she was offended by how Bush behaved at the meeting. She states that Bush acted is if the meeting were a party, rather than a somber meeting with families of slain veterans, that he kept calling her "Ma" or "Mom," and that he didn't seem to know the gender of her child, referring to him only as "your loved one."

to

The following July 4th she gave an interview [1] where she described the meeting as "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." In that interview, she described President Bush as being "detached from humanity." She said, "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 claimed, "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."

or

She believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are merely part of "a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world." [2]

to

In a letter to author William Rivers Pitt, she stated, "And most importantly and devastatingly, this war is based on lies and betrayals. Not one American soldier, nor one Iraqi should have been killed. Common sense would dictate that not one more person should be killed for lies. One of the people, my son, was more than enough for me and my family. I will live in unbearable pain until I die. First of all, because my first born was killed violently, and second of all, because he was killed for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world. This agenda and their war machine will chew up and spit out as many of our children as they can unless we stop them now." [3]

or

She has also referred to President Bush as "Führer" in an editorial relating her experience on a recent Larry King Live show. [4]

to

In another editorial relating her experience on a June 28th, 2005 Larry King Live show she described President Bush as having "moronic and callous foreign policies" and said Senator John Warner "fell in lockstep behind his Führer." She said, "this war is a catastrophe" and "we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide." [5] Pencil Pusher 04:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for claiming to be "on her side". Rather than babble on about something as pointless as your view, I will summarize: allegation != criticism, and the opinions of non-notables like Fred Barnes and some random people with internet connections, (ie, "bloggers") do not matter to this article. By laying out all of their opinions as "criticisms", and giving them all their own headings, you're saying that Wikipedia not only fully believes these opinions, but endorses them. I'm not saying you can't include their views; they could be quickly summarized, such as "other claims include...", but giving them their own headers is ridiculous, and all that quoting is completely unnecessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:46

Did I introduce a single criticm? Was it me who put a single critic in the article? No. I took every existing criticism, put them in context. I say again: part of this story is how the right has reacted to CS. Glossing over this fact makes an incomplete article.Pencil Pusher 04:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what you did is try to legitimize the smears. The issue of the right-wing attack on the subject is addressed clearly in one sentence at the top of the criticism section. You must be very bored tonight. -- Eleemosynary

No, what i did was put every single one of the smears in contex. When someone put in a criticsm that "she changed her position" I put in the relevant sections from article, showing she was, at best conflicted. Pencil Pusher 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, PP, it's getting sad now. You're grasping at straws, and posting paragraphs of posts/revisions that have nothing to do with the point at hand: You attempted to turn the page into a laughably POV screed, were caught and reverted, and are now trying to save face. Lucidity might be a friend with whom you may want to acquaint yourself.

Does paranoia work for you? Not everyone is against you. Any fair minded, rational person would see you are... well... i let them insert the correct term. Pencil Pusher

And you'll be addressing my question when, exactly?

What was the question, exactly? Pencil Pusher 05:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you hiding behind "I was just trying to let the reader decide" when you clearly had a POV agenda?

Why do you have such a hard time with reading comprehension? Once again, part of the story is how the right wing treated CS. The article had a number of right wing critisms when I got here. I changed each one to more accurately reflect the truth. As is common with right wing criticsm, there was a kernel of truth in each one. I put the context in each one so that any reader with above an 80 IQ could decide for themselves that the critisms were baseless. This is a critical part of the story. Unfortunately, I've encountered a number of borderline-retarded editors who simply can't comprehend this. Pencil Pusher 05:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem whatseover with reading comprehension. I have a problem with liars, of which you are one. Now that you've been cornered, your anger and frustration are bleeding into your self-righteous justifications for your POV edit. It was only a matter of time.

I am always angered and frustrated at people who are so dense that light bends around their heads. BTW, you were the one who started with the attacks, I just decided to dish it out as good as I got. You say I made 42 edits. Isn't it curious that not a single one was reverted until now? Isn't it curious that people were watching each one of my edits and believed them to be fair. Isn't it curious you can't come up with a single NPOV word that was written by me, and your only argument is, "but you acknowledged that critism exists." Well, you may not be able to appreciate these nuances, but luckily others around here have some pretty solid heads on their shoulders. Pencil Pusher 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

May I try to mediate here? I've been working with this article for a while now and believe the criticism section needs to be factual and concise. I agree that there should not be a subsection for each RW critic, as they are all more or less on the same page. But it is important that each criticism be described, as they seem to come in waves and show a coordinated smear campaign. First criticism: she changed her story; second criticism: she is a pawn of "far-left elements"; third criticism: her story is "not real"; fourth criticism: she's an anti-Semite. Please do not purge such criticism under the belief that anyone who mentions them is in tacit agreement with them. Let's work together to create a factual, concise section summarizing the critics' tactics concisely. In fact, making note of the things that have been said to try to impugn this woman (including the earlier, discredited statements like the one implying that her story has been inconsistent) say a lot more about the critics than the subject of the criticism. Badagnani 05:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Halleluiah! Someone with a brain! May I suggest using as a starting point the 1400 words that were deleted before the "anyone who mentions them is in tacit agreement with them" crowd got their hands on the article. Pencil Pusher 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Pencil Pusher's" nonsense notwithstanding, I would propose we do not list the RW smears under the heading of "Criticism," which lends undue credence to the smearers. Perhaps a heading of "Smear Campaign" or "Attacks" would be more fitting. "Criticism" implies thoughtful, cogent reasoning. It's also not necessary to post such ridiculous things as the Liddy Transcript, or what one National Review editor said about an unknown blogger. The amount of RW criticism that was left in the article AFTER Brian0918's rv should suffice. Eleemosynary 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Attacks" does makes sense as well. To be honest, I thought the section was fine before Pencil Pusher's additions, as afterwards it became too long and had many long direct quotes (esp. the Liddy transcript) which could have been summarized in a few words, with links to the original articles. This article has to remain readable and the "criticism"/"attacks" section shouldn't give the impression of dominating the article. Similar attacks were made against Martin Luther King but wouldn't it be weird if a long "criticism" section full of desperate smears against him ("he's nothing but a left-wing rabble rouser") appeared in an article about him? Badagnani 05:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put in the Liddy transcript. The Liddy transcript was a late addition. Actually, as I said before, I didn't put in a single critism. I added context to each critism so that they could be analyzed. Yes, context adds length, but how else can you diffuse "she would also object to her son being killed in afghanistan" or "she said the president was sincere". Pencil Pusher 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, give it up.

One can only hope.

For posterity, this was the section whose mere mention was NPOV...

Good thing it's gone.

Criticisms

Since embarking on her vigil in early August 2005, Sheehan has been criticized by various individuals. Media criticism of her has been most vociferous from the right wing.

Inconsistent position

On 7 August 2005, Internet news analyst and conservative talk radio host Matt Drudge alleged that Sheehan had been inconsistent in her support for the war. He cited a 24 June 2004 interview article with Sheehan, which took place after her meeting with him.[6]. The article [7] describes a conflicted Sheehan:

But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief. "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

Cindy said she felt [a form letter expressing the President's condolences] was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

Refusal to appear on The O'Reilly Factor

On 9 August, The O'Reilly Factor television program host Bill O'Reilly announced that Sheehan would appear on the next evening's episode of his program. During that same show he said various things about her, including:

"I think she has been hijacked by some very, very far left elements."

"She has thrown in -- there is no question that she has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country."

"Other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous."

"There are some people who hate this government, hate their country right now, and blaming Bush for all the terrorism and all the horror in the world."[8]

On 10 August, O'Reilly wrote:

"Ms. Sheehan told us she would appear on “The Factor” this evening, but she backed out a few hours ago, saying I lied about her."[9]

That same day she told a blogger, via telephone:

"Well, I’m not going to go on his show because, you know I don’t like it when people lie about me and attack me for exercising my freedom of speech. You know, it’s one thing for Bill O’Reilly to disagree with my politics and my view on the war, but it’s absolutely another thing that he attacked me personally about it. And he actually asked me to go on the show again today, and I said - my first reaction was all right I’ll go on it if he publicly apologizes for lying about me but then my second reaction was no, I’m not going on it, I’m not going to dignify his show by my presence because I believe his show is an obscenity. It’s an obscenity to the truth and it’s an obscenity to humanity."[10]

Falsified story accusations

On 11 August 2005, during Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume", political commentator Fred Barnes said:

"My view is, is there any left-wing publicity hound who the media won't build up? You have Joe Wilson, you have Bill Burkett, you know the guy that sold CBS on the story about Bush last fall and now you have this woman. This woman wants to go in and tell the President that the war is about oil because the President wants to pay off his buddies. She's a crackpot, and yet the press treats her as some important protester."[11]

On the 15 August 2005 episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show, host Limbaugh said:

"I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left."[12]

Disagreement with relatives

In an email conversation with Matt Drudge, Casey's paternal aunt Cherie Quartarolo is quoted as saying:

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Quartarolo signs the email:

"Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

Quartarolo does not mention the individual names of the aunts, uncles, or cousins.

During a series of interviews published on several websites, Sheehan said:

"My in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey..."

"We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death."[13]

Sheehan also told Salon.com:

"...my immediate family, Casey's dad and my three children and my sister, we're all on the same page. And I really think that some of my husband's siblings are with us too." [14]

Dede Miller, Sheehan's sister and Casey's aunt, is supportive of Sheehan's actions and joined her at Crawford early in the protest.[15]

Disagreement with other families

On 15 August 2005 Matt and Toni Matula, parents of the late Matthew Matula, a Texas Marine killed in Iraq, requested that the white cross representing their dead son as a victim of the war in Iraq be removed, stating that they did not wish their son's name to be part of an anti-war demonstration. Mr. Matula said, "It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause." [16]

Treatment of 9/11

Stephen Spruiell from National Review’s Media Welbog also criticized Sheehan for an April 27 2005 speech given at San Francisco State University for imprisoned NLG member Lynne Stewart, where Sheehan raised questions about the September 11th attacks. [17] In the speech Sheehan said:

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: his country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant." {applause}[18]

Comentary on the Criticism Section

General feeling here in the archive seems to be to have this section in sub sections by topic rather than critic.
- Yes absolutely--Arnoldlover 19:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Does the "falsified story" portion need to be in there? It seems to me that it does nothing. It's just Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Barnes claiming she is somehow false. Mr. Limbaugh's claim is nothing. It has no points but merely says she's false. It is akin to claiming she is stupid, wrong, or purple. Mr. Barnes has more substance but even his only amounts to disagreeing with her opinion. She claims President Bush is fighting the war for oil to pay his friends. There is no proof that she does not believe her story or that she is making it up to get on TV so it only amounts to a difference of opinion between Mr. Barnes and Ms. Sheehan and isn't really a criticism. - 24.7.186.18 22:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan's Inflammatory Writings

I believe that if significant opinions or quotes are found in Sheehan's various writings and editorials, they can be included. Even if they may not be flattering to her image. Otherwise we get only one picture of who this woman is. No one has argued over her various other quotes or opinions. POV destroyer 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

a very valid argument was brought up that one word out of context is not good enough. I've removed the current text because of this, and also note that the 2 users editing it before are soon in 3RR land.

From the url cited, is this the text in question? -- "My absolute favorite guest of the evening was Sen. John Warner, powerful chair of the Senate Armed Disservices Committee. Of course, he fell in lockstep behind his Führer and praised the speech and how, although we have "all" paid a terrible price for this invasion and occupation, bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people is worth all the sacrifices that the world is making."

Please propose a rewrite, or a better argument why quoting just one word from that statement is notable. Eclipsed 15:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problem showing that Sheehan has used a lot of metaphors, comparisons, etc. If fact, I think that something should be written to point out that she is vocal and how she is vocal. Probably a description something like, "Sheehan talks energetically about problems of the war including comparing Bush using many metaphors and similies." Then two or three links to complete letters or interviews that she has given.

Pulling one word, phrase, or even line out of context does not tell the whole truth about the statement. This is the same reasoning for why the evening news worked to give the Presidential candidates extended clips (30 seconds or more) so that the entire context of the quote was there. In this article, the use of links replaces the use of out of context clips, and allows the article to be as blatently honest, wholly truthful, and with nothing but truth confirmed by reliable sources.

16:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it is out of context. The sentence was "Sheehan referred to President Bush as "Fuhrer"". That is exactly what the reader finds when they access the citation. There are other precedents in this article such as "Sheehan called Bush a "Lying Bastard" and "Maniac"". I have not seen a good argument for exluding the "Fuhrer" comment. I will restore it. Perhaps a separate section for Sheehan's personal views and opinions about President Bush? POV destroyer 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. "Lying Bastard" and "Maniac" should be removed as well, if they are used as single word quotes like that. The entire article needs a careful look at to make it as clear and unbiased as possible. Using key primary sources of what she said is probably the best way to go. Americanus 18:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of material floating around that is attributed to Sheehan that she denies having written. This should be noted. --Gorgonzilla 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Peace Activist or Anti-War Activist?

There is a distinction between the two terms, and I would like some evidence to support one or the other. This is the way that I see it... A peace activist is an activist that believes that problems can be solved without violence or war. A peace activist opposes all violence, and all wars. The anti-war activist term seems to limit this to strictly being against war, but not necessarily violence that is not sanctioned by any goverment. Sheehan could also be dubbed anti-oil-war activist, or anti-middle-east-war activist, which might be more acurate than either of the others. Putting any of these terms in front of activist is probably inaccurate, unless we have a quote from Sheehan describing herself in one of those terms. I think that it is most reasonable to simply say "activist". Americanus 11:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is appreciated but such hair-splitting is not useful to the general reader. Anti-(all-)war activists such as Quakers are rare. But during the Vietnam War, activists trying to stop that war were variously called peace activists or anti-war activists, not "anti-Vietnam War activists"--it's too cumbersome a term. Everyone knew which war they were opposing--the one their country's government was pursuing. My Vietnamese music instructor was a college anti-war activist affiliated with the Buddhist monks in the late '60s and early '70s in Saigon and his group called themselves "pro-peace" activists for the reason that the South Vietnam government banned the term "anti-war"; they were pursuing a war and nobody could be against it.

Probably most anti-Vietnam War activists would not have opposed all wars--World War II being an example--(and thus most were not "anti-(every)-war" activists but were against the U.S.'s participation in the Vietnam War and wanted the U.S. out. The situation here is comparable. If someone is against all war, the term pacifist is used. You're correct in saying that Sheehan may not be a pacifist, thus the term won't be used. But anti-war is certainly appropriate, as it represents the focus of her activism. If you must still object, we can change to "anti-Iraq War activist." It would be good if other contributors would also contribute their opinions on this. Badagnani 15:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The usual convention in an encyclopedia in a case of this type is to look at the description used by the person themselves. Sheehan describes herself as a peace activist and her group is gold star mothers for peace. Using 'anti-war' label in this case is POV. --Gorgonzilla 15:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, it's similar to using "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion"--is that the convention here at WP? People would rather be seen as supporting something rather than opposing something. Personally I think it's fine either way, pro-peace or anti-war, but if you want to change it go ahead. I do know there was opposition to "peace activist" a few days ago due to the specificity of Sheehan's protest, namely the fact that she isn't necessarily an activist for peace everywhere, just in Iraq (at least right now). Badagnani 16:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think in the case of abortion the proper labels are the ones that mention abortion: pro-abortion and anti-abortion. The pro-choice/life labels are both POV marketting spin. In the case of peace/war both are actually descriptive, the peace term has the much longer tradition and it is the one she uses herself. If she called the group Gold Star Mothers against War I would say anti-war.--Gorgonzilla 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict

As the article stands, the "Comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict" doesn't seem to fit in the introduction, or perhaps anywhere. It seems extraneous, maybe added because someone doesn't like this small element of her stated position. What do others working on this article think about this? (Of course, thinking of the clarity of the article and not whether you agree with her position or not.) Badagnani 07:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The source posted here is a random Usenet post. She denied she ever said those things on Anderson Cooper's show[19]. So I'm removing it - we have a well-sourced denial, with the other source being a random Usenet post from someone in Thailand. Ruy Lopez 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rich Lowry of National Review is reporting that ABC has confirmed that she wrote the e-mail. [20] TexasDawg 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Rich Lowry or ABC doesn't have to confirm she wrote the letter because she herself said she wrote a letter to ABC. She never said the attributed comments about Israel however. Let me ask a simple question: what is the source of the letter with the added Israeli comments? The best I can find is a random Usenet post. If I wanted to smear her, I could take the transcript from one of her speeches, change a few words around and post it. Not that I disagree with the made-up statement by her, but the point is she never made it, we have her denying it, and the source of the rumour is unknown, the best source is some anonymous person in Thailand. Ruy Lopez 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While the quote about her son dying for Israel was erroneous, her comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict are numerous. She did say that terrorism will stop if "you get Israel out of Palestine" and she has called Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas a "slaughter". I don't know if these statements warrant an entire sub-section, but one fictitious quote should not obscure the fact that she has made several very aggressive quotes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; quotes which have become an issue in the overall story of Cindy Sheehan. TexasDawg 22:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

List of known bogus material

List material known to be bogus (either side) here so we don't need to keep discussing it.

Media Matters Claims Smearing Drudge and Fox News

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

Excerpt: "Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has drawn significant media attention for staging an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where she is demanding to meet with the president. On August 8, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted an item on his website, the Drudge Report, in which he falsely claimed that Sheehan "dramatically changed her account" of a meeting she had with Bush in June 2004; Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context. After the story appeared on the Drudge Report, it gained momentum among conservative weblogs and eventually reached Fox News, where it was presented as hard news and in commentaries. Media Matters for America will examine how one false story on an Internet gossip site ended up the focus of prime-time cable news coverage."

-BC

The question is if this is notable and if so, how to include it in the main article. Drudge's opinion that she has changed her mind is not [notable] in itself. I can't find any evidence that she has changed her opinion on the war. I think she has come to believe that Bush (and the government) are personally responsible for the death of her son. That certainly makes sense given all that has happened in the past year.

The fact that Drudges opinion was picked up by the media is notable in as far as clarifying for readers that some press has come from [mass media] reporting on this opinion as notable... Hmm... I'm not sure it is historically important, although it may have affected [public opinion]. Perhaps this should be included in a section on Media Bias or something of that matter. Americanus 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Media Matters item also doesn't refute that her statements coming out of the first meeting with the President were of a very different tone than her statements now. The item doesn't belong in the article, but the point it makes, to the extent that it contains any truth, should be used in addressing any related issues in the article. TexasDawg 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The critics of Sheehan spent over a week slamming her with the flip flop charge. It is certainly a lot more notable than the refusal to appear on O'Reily. It is also important to note that the basis for criticism has changed from 'flip flop' to 'left wing extreemist'. As for the Cox News thing, that was in the AP article I read, there is actualy a Cox communications corp.--Gorgonzilla 03:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The current paragraph on this issue is wrong. It states that critics claimed Sheehan "had been inconsistent in her position on the iraq war." The criticism is that Sheehan changed her characterization of her first meeting with Bush, not her position on the war.

Also, I think Media Matters is wrong about the criticism being invalid. The original Drudge article was misleading in the use of the "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." quote, however the overall change in tone of her description of Bush's behavior at the meeting is undeniable. 64.222.233.254 00:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Larry King

In this section it starts: "In another editorial" which should probably be reworded, because when the guests are on the program they are not usually described as giving editorials.Kyle Andrew Brown 03:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bike Ride

The reason it has been showing up as "bike ride" is because that is how Ken Herman reported it in his nationally syndicated column. I'm not sure about changing his wording. He was not trying to be formal. What think all? Kyle Andrew Brown 05:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal but this is an encyclopedia article and you'd never see it as "bike" in that context. If it was part of a quote, then it would be fine. Badagnani 06:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that the stated reasoning for keeping the detail about giving an interview before going for a bike ride was to "show Bush's priorities". Now I'm asking everyone, does that sound neutral? POV destroyer 11:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I kinda think Bush and aids set up the quick standup in the context of the bike ride as a backdrop - they knew what would be videod and the scene of the interview. When a president speaks in Washington it is routine to report that "in the the East Room", "in the Rose garden", "on Air Force One." For some reason it is American journo style to state the place and circumstances of presidential remarks. Maybe it is partly because it provides the tone of softness or hardness of the presidential comments.

Here to include the bike ride setting establishes it was not a "major address" in prime time tv, rather a casual standup that - and by White House standards should be considered made in a more casual rather than formal context. The setting of presidential remarks IS carefully choreographed and I would suggest appropriate to report. Kyle Andrew Brown 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote immediately following comments directly on Bush's priorities. And most news accounts of the quote put it in the context of the bike ride. Removing it three times without refering to talk was not acceptable. As for bicycle/bike, he was on a mountain bike, has anyone ever heard of a 'mountain bicycle?'. Should the article on record player be headed 'gramophone'?--Gorgonzilla 12:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Myself, I'm leaning towards bike ride because that is how the journo tabbed it and Gorgonzilla's point about going on a bike ride like a mountain bike sounds more, well - sporty - than a merry bicycle ride in the 50's.

Also, If any reverts were made after Talk started that is a not good form. This article is not going to become a Revert Warriors site. The battle lines are in the real world! Thanks for noticing that.

How about "mountain bike ride". But we need clear fact check it was indeed a mountain bike.

Anyway, let's get this refereed quickly. And demostrate we can do it. Kyle Andrew Brown 13:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The pharse "prior to going on a bicycle ride" should be removed from the article. The inclusion of the phrase is clearly POV and meant to show that the president was more concerned with a bike ride than he was in talking to Cindy Sheehan, in this case overshadowing the comment he actually made. --Henrybaker 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You may think it is POV (and in fact the whole interview situation does seem to undermine Bush's seriousness regarding the Sheehan matter), but keeping the ref is nevertheless crucial to an understanding of the Bush quote which follows.

Bush was asked why he couldn't take out some time from his schedule to meet with Sheehan. His response, clearly stated, was that his physical health was of greater importance, and that is why he has chosen to ride his bicycle instead. Remove the "bicycle ride" and this context is lost.

Keep in mind that the bike ride (which journalists were invited to join) was a carefully choreographed press event, chosen by Bush and/or his advisers. Perhaps he even meant to undermine the import of the Sheehan vigil by having the interview coincide with doing something so lighthearted--who knows?

In any case, reread the text and you'll see that the phrase "bicycle ride" simply historicizes one of Bush's first responses to why he wouldn't meet with Sheehan, and puts in context his own response as to why he couldn't do that (because, according to him, his exercise was of paramount importance at that time). Badagnani 18:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I hear you Henry, but good luck getting it out with this crew. Somehow they have determined that the bike ride is an essential part of the quote. I guess without mentioning it his words just wouldn't make sense. You'll find intellectual honesty is not a ubiquitous asset around these parts. Good luck. Homoneutralis 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Editorial Standards

This article is going to be held to a very high standard of pointing directly to attributed sources and demonstrating non-bias in the facts that are reported. Editors reviewing content are going to strieve to bring to the Wiki community a sterling example of how an encyclopedia article is discussed, written, reviewed and acurately presents the facts associated with a volatile story.

This is a terrific ongoing American story that clearly has a demarcation of sides: and not just in terms of political persuasion, or beliefs about the war. Views will be presented in Talk and they are likely to be steamy - they should be.

But I'll guess few will be impressed by vandalism or personal attacks on the writers in Talk or in the article. In fact, they are sure to be dismissed as non-Wiki.Kyle Andrew Brown 02:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you keep a tally of possible vandalism. In addition the 3 revert rule needs to be enforced in this article. It has become a heated political forum which is certainly not the point of an encyclopedia article. --CSTAR 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

David Horowitz

"In an unverified transcript posted on a website run by conservative political commentator David Horowitz, of a speech given"

I recommend this be removed until verified to meet encyclopedia requirement for facts only. Kyle Andrew Brown 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Badagnani's change still leaves it unverified. Kyle Andrew Brown 18:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't trust the transcript? I believe there were other news sources present at the rally that quoted her saying the same thing. Otherwise we would have to remove a lot of the citations as a lot of the ones contributing to this article are coming from partisan blogs, and news sources. POV destroyer 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Trust David Horowitz? Frankly no, he is not a reliable source, he has a proven track record of falsified claims. He is the Al Sharpton of the right, he made claims that were subsequently exposed as fraudulent. Unlike Drudge or O'Reily however he is not a well known commentator so an unsubstantiated assertion is not news in and of itself.--Gorgonzilla 19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on information contained in the transcript. An encyclopedia, however, does not function as a clearing house for a transcript that is unverified. And that is what the writer has put down. The writer in MHO is better served getting specific verified facts than saying the facts come from an unverified transcript. Kyle Andrew Brown 20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this transcript would be completely made up, and I really think you do to. I will work to see where they got that transcript from. I truly believe that this is a bad precedent as 80% of Wikipedia political articles contain information not sourced from mainstream media. POV destroyer 22:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You're battlin a straw man POV destroyer!

It's not been suggested not to have the material in the article. It's been suggested that stating in an enclyclopedia that a transcript is unverified makes the information to follow suspect. Journo 101. And because of hightened sensitivity and ongoing development of this article Warrior Reverting can be lessened if (1) facts are documented, (2) inflammatory writing is avoided, and (3) writers are cordial in their defense statements.

Just today I position bumped a paragraph in this article and the writer was very senstive to it and rightly so - - and the writer presented a valid defense without resorting to attack mode. That's the model of Wiki participation this article strives for. It's a model which will produce a terrific product for the Wiki community. Kyle Andrew Brown 22:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not put in the "unverified" preface. I just presented the quote and the link to the transcript. Someone else that did not seem to like how Sheehan's own words might make her look, decided to distrust the source and added the "unverified" part. I left it up because I truly could find no other source for the transcript than the Horowitz site. If you deleted it because of the "unverified" part then replace it without the "unverified" like I had it originally. In the meantime I found an article Sheehan wrote on the lewrockwell site that basically says the same thing, that she thinks Bush and company are the world's biggest terrorists. POV destroyer 02:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would never quote Drudge without a caution that he regularly posts untrue stuff. --Gorgonzilla 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal cites this same transcript: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007110 POV destroyer 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What are we to look for at your link? I did a "find" on Drudge and Transcript and got nothing. What are we looking for? Like I said, I have limited my concerns to the "unverified" formating so tell me what you're finding in the link. If it's editorially valid, then perhaps you have found the source you need. BTW you're going to lose points personally attacking folks at this article. You don't gain credibility.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You must be new here Kyle or else you have selective reading skills. I think the person being personally attacked is me. POV destroyer 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The ABC Memo

POV Inserter has been inserting POV edits on the ABC memo again. I think he has the story wrong here. The data trail is consistent with:

Sheehan posted an email to ABC that contained the statement about the neo-cons being pro-Israel.
A supporter added in the other comments that were widely reported by Drudge and O'Reily.
Sheehan denied the comments of the form 'My kid died for Israel'.

There are two very different charges here. One is that the neo-cons are putting the interests of Israel before the US. This is not exactly an unreasonable statement, a federal prosecutor has just indicted several AIPAC members and a neo-con at the Pentagon for passing secrets to Israel.

The record is being edited here to match up denials to claims that are not being made. That is very wrong and very POV. It appears to me that this is a subtle dis-information campaign. --Gorgonzilla 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts are making you upset Gorgon? Seriously, are you still in High School? I heartily encourage all to read the additions I made and read the Slate citation. POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitchens is a highly partisan source here. He writes Op-ed for Slate, not editorial since he has a by-line on his articles. Only articles without by-lines are normally considered editorials. As for being in high school, that is another personal attack from you. As it happens I have a post graduate degree in Nuclear Physics. --Gorgonzilla 00:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you certainly don't display the type of critical thinking I would think a degree like that would require. Everytime you come on here accusing me of inserting POV you go running away with your tail between your legs when confronted by the facts. So keep it up, I'll let truth be my shield. POV destroyer 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dealling with isses where forged documentation is involved is hard. The reason I had no re-edited was that I wanted to discuss here with you. Instead you simply re-asserted your original axioms and threw insults. --Gorgonzilla 12:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Summary

An anonymous user, 4.228.90.146, persists in making POV edit/edit summaries and has, most recently, waged an edit war to include Sheehan's political affiliation in the article summary. An article at this level of controversy and contention cannot withstand repeated unilateral changes to summaries. I invite 4.228.90.146 to explain his feeling that it is absolutely paramount that the summary mentions that Mrs. Sheehan is a Democrat. I find no need to do so as it is discussed else and the tone of the "political activism" section makes her inclinations fairly obvious. Soltak 00:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I invite User: Soltak to explain his/her feelings about why the inclusion of information that Sheehan is a Democrat is a POV edit. A summary, by definition, contains information that is discussed elswhere in the article. Therefore, if you object to this information being in the summary, why have a summary at all? Why not delete the summary? If you do not delete the summary, then leave the information about her affiliation in the summary, precisely because this factual, neutral point-of-view information is not "discussed at length" elswhere in the Wiki article.

- Anon

Actually I think in this case the onus is on you. Putting the party affiliation in is essentially an assertion that Sheehan is acting out of a partisan political motive to embarass the President for purely party motives. I think that more people believe that she is distraught at the loss of her son. I don't think that anyone who is not a very extreeme partisan is going to read the article and think 'Oh thats why she is there'. Instead I think that the reaction will be 'oh no the windnuts have got to the article, revert, revert'.--Gorgonzilla 01:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Gorgonzilla, the onus is on the person who deletes factual information from an article. (This is based on the definition of "vandalism" in the comment at the top of the article).

Gogonzilla writes: "Putting the party affiliation in is essentially an assertion that Sheehan is acting out of a partisan political motive to embarass the President for purely party motives. " No, that is entirely your point-of-view interpretation, and quite a cynical one as well.

Inclusion of her affiliation simply means that she believes in the ideals and political stance of the Democratic Party. She is not trying to hide this information. It is not discussed "at length" in this article, and it was even't mentioned in this Wiki article before I put in the information today, as far as I can tell. (The article immediately before my first edit was [21] and makes no mention of her political party at all).

Gorgonzilla, you seem to be suggesting that this information should be removed completely from this article.

If we did so, then would it be fair to Cindy Sheehan to have readers think that, before her son's death, she had never voted and that she had not been interested in government? Would your opinion change if it were explitly stated "Cindy Sheehan had never been interested in voting for any president prior to her son's death"? Why leave ambiguity to the imagination of the readers, when the facts are readily available?

If this information were removed, would it be fair to the readers to believe that military families don't have Democrats willing to take a stand on what they believe?

If she were a Republican, wouldn't her supporters want that information known as well? If she had stated so, I would have added the information in the summary.

Absolutely, her political affiliation defines who she is, otherwise she would not openly say it. This information is just as important (if not more so) than the date of her birth, which is in the summary. Everybody has a birthday. Not everybody is interested in politics. Not everybody is interested in the Democratic party.

- Anon

You are forgetting that this is a SUMMARY. Typically an article summary includes a few sentences with the date of birth, date of death, profession and major accomplishments of a person. It would be appropriate to include his position as chaiman of the DNC in the summary of Howard Dean. In this case it is not one of the most important facts about Sheehan, she is not acting on behalf of the democratic party, you might as well include her religion, or blood type in the summary. The only purpose of putting a statement in the summary saying that she is a democrat is to associate her with the democratic party (or to imply that she is an activist for the democratic party) at the top of the article, and this is a POV and not really factually correct.

Quite frankly, I am more concerned by your attitude. Everyone is a "vandal", yet you violate the 3RR at will. GabrielF 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, multiple reverts to follow Wiki editorial standards are not violations, nor are mutliple reverts violations when they return content to past consensus states.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus here: it is quite unnecessary to mention in the lead that she is a Democrat. The lead is for the broadest outline of any topic; unless, as Gabriel says, she is significantly involved in party politics, her actual party affiliation is quite irrelevant. Let's keep it out of the lead. Antandrus (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Antandrus writes: " unless, as Gabriel says, she is significantly involved in party politics, her actual party affiliation is quite irrelevant." "Politics" and "policy" derive from the same Greek word (polis). The actions of the city-state (and now sovereign democratic governments) are defined in their policy, which is achieved through politics. Because Cindy Sheehan is trying to influence George W. Bush's foreign policy, by definition, she is involved in politics . Therefore, Antandrus, you actually agree with me: her party affiliation is relevant and must be included in the summary.

- Anon

User:GabrielF writes "The only purpose of putting a statement in the summary saying that she is a democrat is to associate her with the democratic party (or to imply that she is an activist for the democratic party) at the top of the article, and this is a POV and not really factually correct". No, that is entirely your point-of-view interpretation of a neutral fact, and quite a cynical one as well.

Inclusion of her affiliation simply means that she believes in the ideals and political stance of the Democratic Party. She is not trying to hide this information. It is not discussed "at length" in this article, and it was even't mentioned in this Wiki article before I put in the information today, as far as I can tell. (The article immediately before my first edit was [22] and makes no mention of her political party at all). The prior absense speaks volumes; of course this information is important (especially since so many are trying to suppress it!), and precisely for that reason, it absolutely belongs in the summary.

GabrielF writes Quite frankly, I am more concerned by your attitude. Everyone is a "vandal".... By definition, anybody who deletes neutral-point-of-view-facts from a Wikipedia article (especially without discussion) is a vandal. Unfortunately, many people engaged in that type of behavior within the past several hours, and thus, that word accurately defined the actions they chose to commit of their own volition.

User:Antandrus writes: " unless, as Gabriel says, she is significantly involved in party politics, her actual party affiliation is quite irrelevant." "Politics" and "policy" derive from the same Greek word (polis). The actions of the city-state (and now sovereign democratic governments) are defined in their policy, which is achieved through politics. Because Cindy Sheehan is trying to influence George W. Bush's foreign policy, by definition, she is involved in politics . Therefore, Antandrus, you actually agree with me: her party affiliation is relevant and must be included in the summary.

-Anon

No, I don't agree with you at all, and if you are as skilled with etymology as you pretend to be, you will realize that the exact meanings of words do not carry through the thousands of years during which, as language changes, the roots remain identifiable. If Cindy were a professional politician I could see including her party affiliation in the lead, but since she is not, it is an unnecessary and misleading detail. Antandrus (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, please read WP:Vandalism before flinging that charge around lightly. If a group of people removes your unilateral change to the article, and you call that reversion vandalism, I strongly advise you to consider whether your own behavior strictly conforms to our policy. Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Antandrus wrote "No, I don't agree with you at all". If you really believe that, then it appears you don't even agree with yourself. According to your words "unless she is significantly involved in party politics". She is, by her own actions, significantly involved. Cindy Sheehan is in the news precisely because she is trying to change policy in a dramatic way, whether through speeches in front of thousands of people (March 19 rally in North Carolina, April 27 rally in San Francisco, August 5 rally in Dallas, August 12 television commercial), testifying before Congress (June 16), and talking on national television with numerous professional broadacasters (Larry King, Chris Matthews ,etc). This is the biggest public moment in her life so far. By contrast, she certainly defines herself by what she is not: She is not a Republican. In the interview with Chris Matthews [23] (bold emphasis mine):

MATTHEWS: Let me give you a statement that seems to show some division in your family. One of your relatives has given this statement to a conservative radio commentary for distribution.

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports our troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

So it seems like you have a division in your family.

SHEEHAN: Those are on my husband's side of the family. And we've always been politically on different sides of the fence. I have always been a Democrat and they have always been Republicans, so we've always had a good-natured kind of debate within that family.

In the preceding conversation, Cindy Sheehan distances herself from her husband's family (in the same way the letter tries to distance her husband's family from her) due to the fact that they are Republicans. She did not say or imply that they were puppets pulled by the strings of the Republican hierachy. Nor does saying-that-she-is-a-Democrat say or imply that she is pulled by the strings of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

User:Antandrus wrote "if you are as skilled with etymology as you pretend to be". No Antandarus, I do not "pretend to be" skilled at anything! (I do not even claim it.) But I will say that these two words are inextricably intertwined, and their common root reinforces their relationship. In a modern democratic society, you cannot form policy without politics, and the word "politics" is meaningless without policy. That has always been the case from ancient times, and has remained true in modern times. Cindy Sheehan does not have to be a "professional" politician to be a member of the Democratic Party, which by definition is a political party. Perhaps it would be more clear to call it the "United States Democratic-Policy Party" rather the "United States Democratic Political-Party". Otherwise, the Democratic Party has no reason to exist. People do not gather at national political party conventions, sing songs, float balloons, ham it up for the camera, and cavort with donkeys (or elephants) because they have nothing better to do. The whole purpose of a political party and political conventions is to establish a stance on policy.

User:Antandrus wrote "If a group of people removes your unilateral change to the article". But if the group of people is a group of vandals with a particular POV (which has been demonstrated repeatedly by their own words within this discussion), acting in a unilateral vandalous manner according to the definition of vandalism in the comment at the top of the article, then absolutely my reversions to reincorporate neutral-point-of-view-facts conform to the goals of the Wikipedia.

-Anon

Dear ? (I don't know what your username is because you don't have one): we get your point. The reference to Sheehan's membership in the Democratic Party has been noted; it does have relevance and thus does appear in the article. You have won. Please enjoy a "cold one" and move on to improve Wikipedia by making other articles better or creating new ones. Badagnani 20:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Whew! I think I'm going to need a cold one now.

21:25, 21 August 2005, CSTAR blocked 4.228.90.229 (expires 05:25, 24 August 2005) (contribs) (Repeated vandalism of cindy sheehan article after warnings and previous blocks) Badagnani 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the very clear consensus here is not to put the party affiliation in the summary. The refusal to accept this is a clear rejection of the 3RR--Gorgonzilla 22:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a consensus among people with strong POV, who are excising information from the summary as a reflection of their POV.

That's completely incorrect. But, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter at all. The consensus is that that information shouldn't be present in the summary; how individual users arrived at their decisions is of no consequence. Soltak 22:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a consensus among people with strong POV as can evidenced by what they have written within this discussion. Indeed, Gorgonzilla claimed earlier: "Putting the party affiliation in is essentially an assertion that Sheehan is acting out of a partisan political motive to embarass the President for purely party motives. " This interpretation is entirely Gorgonzilla's very strong POV. Trying to remove it from the summary is also strongly point-of-view, as can be seen by the energetic attempts to remove it. If so many people are upset by a neutral-point-of-view-fact, then surely it must be important information that they are trying to obscure. I go back to the original question: If not in the summary, then why have a summary at all? As I pointed out earlier, she is currently known because of her politics (please re-read the discussion on the relationship between policy and politics), therefore her political party affiliation must be in the summary.

-Anon

I don't have to reread any discussions about the relationship between policy and politics, I got quite enough of that while I was earning my masters in political science. You can rationalize your position all you want but the point is that a consensus has been reached. Your disagreement with it is completely irrelevant. Soltak 23:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User: Soltak writes : "I don't have to reread any discussions about the relationship between policy and politics". So if you agree with my analysis, then why are you making the POV edits?

User: Soltak writes : "Your disagreement with it is completely irrelevant." If a consensus has been reached by a group of people to include POV edits , then their POV edits are group vandalism, as defined in the comment at the head of article. Therefore, my disagreement is entirely relevant.

- Anon

Allow me to quote to you the wikipedia manual of style:

The opening paragraph should give:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))

Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)

Nationality

What they did

Why they are significant [24]

The reason we don't include her membership in the democratic party is purely stylistic - it has nothing to do with etymology or anything else, it has to do with the fact that biographical articles have a particular style and including her political affiliation does not belong in any of the categories above. I wasn't as clear above as I should have been, perhaps because you are the most frustrating editor I have ever encountered, but we wouldn't include the party affiliation of ANYONE in the opening. Even in the case of Howard Dean we would say Howard Dean is Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stating his occupation, not his party affiliation. Sheehan isn't even a democratic party activist, she doesn't claim to speak for the dems, she speaks for herself. GabrielF 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! --Eleemosynary 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Add to this that the Democrats, as a party, have not taken a strong anti-war position (except for a few on the left side of the party like Kucinich, McKinney, Conyers). Even Clinton (a Democrat) presided over low-intensity bombing of Iraq for years. Thus, Sheehan's actions don't really represent the overall position of the Democratic Party, which, for whatever reason, is much more circumspect with regard to ending the war. She stands to the left of it, though she might hope that more Democratic lawmakers eventually come to her side. Badagnani 00:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:GabrielF wrote: "but we wouldn't include the party affiliation of ANYONE in the opening". Unfortunately, User:GabrielF, that is an incorrect observation. Allow me to quote the opening summary for Bill Clinton, which clearly contains this sentence (bold emphasis mine):

Generally regarded as a member of the moderate New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party , he headed the centrist Democratic Leadership Council from 1990 to 1991.

That sentence alone proves that your observation, and therefore your argument, are completely wrong. Indeed, the first time his party affiliation was mentioned was in November 2001.

Allow me to quote the Wiki page for Bill Clinton's wife, which states in the opening summary (bold emphasis mine):

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947), was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, as the wife of President Bill Clinton. Since being elected in 2000 she currently serves as the junior United States Senator from New York. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

This was true August 21, 2005 and going back to March 4 2005

Allow me to quote the opening summary of the wiki page for Charles Schumer (bold emphasis mine):

Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer (born November 23, 1950) is the senior Senator from the state of New York and a member of the Democratic Party.

This was true even going back to September 25, 2003.

Allow me to quote the opening summary of the wiki page for Edward Kennedy (bold emphasis mine):

Edward Moore Kennedy, (born February 22, 1932, in Boston, Massachusetts) is the senior Democratic U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

This was true even going back to April 25, 2004.

All cases mention political party affiliation within the opening article summary.

All cases contradict the claim by User: GabrielF that, for "stylistic reasons", the party affiliation should not be included in the opening article summary for "ANYONE".

Therefore, if precedent is a guide, and if User: GabrielF sincerely believes in following precedent, then User: GabrielF actually agrees with me, and certainly the Cindy Sheehan page needs to be updated to include this information in the opening summary. As I pointed out earlier, she is currently known because of her politics (please re-read the discussion on the relationship between policy and politics), which corresponds to the Wikipedia manual of style's requirement of Why they are significant. Therefore her political party affiliation must be in the summary.

-Anon

As has been spelled out for you countless times, Sheehan is not a politician. It is YOUR contention, and not the contention of NPOV consensus editors of this article, that she is. Each case you cited was that of a politician, so of course their political affiliation is relevant in the opening paragraph. Sheehan's is not. How desperate are you for attention that you keep playing these games? You have lost this battle, yet you refuse to cease vandalizing. So... you have been reported. There. I've replied. And I'll keep reverting your vandalism as quick as you can post it.

--Eleemosynary 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary writes: "And I'll keep reverting your vandalism as quick as you can post it." Deletion of neutral-point-of-view-facts consistutes vandalism. The information I have put in is consistent with the style established by precedent, is documented fact, and is neutral-point-of-view. Your repeated deletions constitute vandalism.

User:Eleemosynary writes: "contention of NPOV consensus editors of this article".

The editors have been not been NPOV.

User:Gorgonzilla claimed earlier in the discussion: "Putting the party affiliation in is essentially an assertion that Sheehan is acting out of a partisan political motive to embarass the President for purely party motives. " This interpretation is entirely Gorgonzilla's very strong POV (and quite cynical at that) , and he/she did not refute my characterization of it being POV.
User:GabrielF claimed earlier in the discussion: "The only purpose of putting a statement in the summary saying that she is a democrat is to associate her with the democratic party (or to imply that she is an activist for the democratic party) at the top of the article" This interpretation is entirely GabrielF's very strong POV (and quite cynical at that), and he/she did not refute my characterization of it being POV.
Trying to remove the information from the summary is also strongly point-of-view, as can be seen by the energetic attempts to remove it. If so many people are upset by a neutral-point-of-view-fact, then surely it must be important information that they are trying to obscure.

User:Eleemosynary writes: "Sheehan is not a politician.". By virtue of her own actions, she is. The formal dictionary definition of a "politician" is

"(noun) One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics."

The formal dictionary definition of "politics" is

"(noun) Political attitudes and positions; the opinion one holds with respect to political questions'"

Therefore, one can say that a politican is "One who is actively involved in political attitudes and positions". By these definitions alone, Cindy Sheehan is a politican:

She is actively involved...through speeches in front of thousands of people (March 19 rally in North Carolina, April 27 rally in San Francisco, August 5 rally in Dallas, August 12 television commercial), testifying before Congress (June 16), and talking on national television with numerous professional broadacasters (Larry King, Chris Matthews ,etc)...

...in political attitudes and positions with regards to the United States federal government's foreign policy position regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. In the interview with Chris Matthews, she declared [25] (bold emphasis mine):

SHEEHAN: I've been working for months to bring the truth to the American people, to wake them up to the fact that this is a war based on lies and to try to put pressure on the government to bring our troops home. In fact, I've been on your show before, a couple months ago ... I have been doing this. I just didn't climb out of the woodwork last Saturday and start this odyssey.

Therefore, Cindy Sheehan is a politican by the formal dictionary definitions of the words. Thus, User:Eleemosynary actually agrees with me:

As User:Eleemosynary states "Each case you cited was that of a politician, so of course their political affiliation is relevant in the opening paragraph," therefore...
- ...User:Eleemosynary agrees that politicians must have their political party affiliation mentioned in the opening summary;
And as Cindy Sheehan, by the formal dictionary definition of "politician", is a politician by her actions, therefore ...
- ...User:Eleemosynary must agree that Cindy Sheehan must have her political party affiliation mentioned in the opening summary.

So her party affiliation must be included in the opening summary.

-Anon

Nope, vandal. And you have been blocked. Eleemosynary 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mathews Interview

Some parts of this are relevant, but certainly not with a box drawn around them to say 'here's my POV'.

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

I put back some of it. --Gorgonzilla 00:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country? So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

I put the box around the transcript excerpt to delineate its boundaries, not to "call attention" to it in the sense of an advertisment. This is because each phrase of the text begins on a separate paragraph. I was just trying to "indent" the text. Furthermore, there is a danger that summarizing this transcript , or merely quoting "out of context" would lead to incorrect point-of-view interpretations. Far better to leave her own words to her own words. Whether you are for or against her position, the reader must know exactly what she said.

I still don't think that the length of the quote is justified. Everything else is sumarized.--Gorgonzilla 01:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla is right. The troll/vandal/(and probable sockpuppet) is spinning his wheels. This is the same nonsense the article went through with the Liddy interview. Shall we post every full transcript of every interview referenced in the article? The vandal should now be left to the sysops. --Eleemosynary

I have to disagree. This interview is particularly important because it shows the similarities of her thoughts on both Iraq and Afghanistan, which have never seem to have been presented in previous versions of this Wiki article. Otherwise, where else is her statement on Afghanistan stated on this Wiki page? Furthermore, it is far too easy to take her words out of context, by people on either side of the argument.

Eleemosynary writes : " This is the same nonsense the article went through with the Liddy interview". I'm not sure what you are talking about, unless you are referring to the story mentioned above (on this page) regarding the August 17th discussion on Fox New's "Hannity & Colmes". Just based on that excerpt, it appears to me Liddy was providing his opinion on Sheehan's words, not her actual words. This excerpt with Chris Matthews is entirely different: her words, exactly as she said them, not as they were interpreted by others, and in the context of the questions that were asked of her.

It's a Match

4.228.90.146 - Denver
4.228.213.151 - Denver
4.228.216.125 - Denver
4.227.175.237 - Denver

Blatant POV edit by "POV Destroyer"/"Homoneutralis"

"POV Destroyer" is back. (Please see the Talk archive for some past issues with him on this page.) His latest change was to characterize all Sheehan's supporters as "liberal." His justification for this? The fact that Drudge, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh were described as "conservative." Please note that neither Sheehan's sister-in-law nor any of the families of the troops who disagree with Sheehan have been labeled "conservative" in this article.

It is not an unfair "label" to describe the above media personalities as "conservative." It is, however, exceedingly POV to describe ALL of Sheehan's supporters as "liberal." Let's keep a close eye on "POV Destroyer," one of the most ironic monikers in the Wikisphere.

This is hilarious. Yes please look at my history and see all the reverts of right-wing edits I have done in addition to left-wing edits. Please read my quote. It applies so aptly to some of you so-called "objective" editors. The only reason some of you see my edits as POV is because you carry so much POV into this article yourselves. You know exactly how you want this story portrayed, and you will call anything that runs counter to your idealogy, "POV". Please be forewarned, that I was not born yesterday, and I back everything that I edit with facts and balance. But if it makes you feel better, keep on starting discussions using my handle and accusing me of POV edits. Those objective observers of this article will get a good chuckle out of it. You should spend your time on the truly POV vandals that have disrupted this article lately. POV destroyer 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, "Destroyer," shrill paranoia is no defense. You are the one who chose to label ALL Sheehan's supporters "liberal," in an absured parody of "balance." That's clear in the history section. Keep it up, and soon you'll have an RV violation. --Eleemosynary 18:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Drudge and O'Reily get tagged is that they are essentially partisan advocates for the right who almost without exception promote the GOP party line. They are in effect simply 'deniable' spokespeople for the GOP and the administration. The political position that they promote is called 'conservative'. If there was commentary from Randy Rhodes she should be described as liberal. Rhodes and O'Reily are both paid to propagandize for one political point of view. If Sheehan had a bunch of Democratic party workers out there with her or the Socialist workers the label would be relevant. As it is inserting the label is simply yet another snide attempt to introduce bias into the article. It is essentially an assertion that the primary point of the demonstration is to damage Bush and not to attempt to bring US troops home. --Gorgonzilla 18:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether Drudge and O'Reilly are conservative. But the same goes for groups like Moveon.org and Progressive Democrats of America. So why not a label identifying those supporters as "liberal"? By the way, nice job getting me blocked. Yes, I'm the editor formerly known as POV_destroyer. A real fair and balanced site this Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 01:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You got yourself blocked. And if you engage in more vandalism, or "straw man" tactics in Talk, the sysops will be notified once again. I'm going to side with Kyle Andrew Brown on this and unplug from the discussion. --Eleemosynary 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You damn fool, I'm not the anon poster he was talking about. LOL!! I think I will notify the sysops of you obtuse stupidity. Homoneutralis 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And it's precisely such responses that got you blocked, and will continue to get you blocked. Yes, Mr. Brown was referring to another vandal, who was also blocked. There have been so many pathetic vandals around this article that its sometimes hard to tell them apart.

UPDATE: Now we learn from a sysop that it was your inappropriate user name that got you blocked. Care to elaborate on your above "nice job getting me blocked" comment? --Eleemosynary 01:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I had been contributing without issues for days, until someone today had a problem with my edits because they didn't think they conformed to their left-wing ideology. And suddenly I'm blocked. Why wasn't I blocked when I first created the account if it was merely an issue with my handle? I'm done. It's over, I've moved on, and I will continue to fight for balance and neutrality in this article. Homoneutralis 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a few days for the users to catch on to an editor's not-too-thinly veiled right-wing ideology. And I doubt the sysops have the time to scrutinize every account name upon creation. So a few inappropriate ones slip through the cracks. Well, I'm glad you've moved on. And believe me, many editors will be ensuring the page remains balanced. --12.145.108.11 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to unplug our discussion with the anon poster vandal who violates Wiki protocol. The views of the poster regarding the democratic party have been recognized, the notation of party affiliation does appear in its appropriate place in the biography and nothing else need be discussed with the anon poster. Kyle Andrew Brown 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Eleemosynary 22:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited the part regarding her two interviews about meeting with President Bush.

Only a hard core idealogue would claim those two interviews don't contradict.

Fortunately for people who care about truth, I found a photo on the net that seems to confirm Cindy's FIRST version of the story.

That is factual documented evidence. Of course liberals will say 'Who are you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?' lol!

The photo shows Bush kissing Sheehan. Unless she is just a COMPLETE PHONY (and if so that should be in her article) she HARDLY looks like someone as 'disgusted' as she claimed to be in the 2nd interview.

And no amount of spin about how 'she was just trying to be polite before the President' or 'she was in shock' will change that.

She wasn't institutionalized when she met with the President. She was in her right mind, gave interviews and expressed some disagreement for the war. Nonetheless she is clearly seen in the photo holding hands and acommodadting his kiss.

How many people think a second meeting with the President would go like that? lol!

Therefore she DID IN FACT re-write history and the photo proves it and needs to be there in any legit encyclopedic entry. (Unless you just want wik to be a liberal propaganda site.)

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)

4.228.216.125

I reported 4.228.216.125 at WP:VIP several minutes ago and the IP address has been blocked for 24 hours. 23:42, 21 August 2005, Jpgordon blocked 4.228.216.125 (expires 23:42, 22 August 2005) (3RR) Soltak 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! --Eleemosynary 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: This same vandal has changed IP addresses once again, and is now vandalizing under 4.227.175.237. I reported him to WP:VIP a few minutes ago and will update this page when I hear more.

Political Labels

I believe labelling critics of Sheehan as "conservative" seeks to marginalize their criticisms as a cheap political attack. I don't think there is any argument that the pundits mentioned espouse a conservative viewpoint. There are no labels for some of the liberal supporters of Sheehan when I don't think anyone would argue that most of the organizations supporting her espouse a liberal viewpoint. Either they both should carry the label or the labels should be done away with altogether. That would truly be the fair and neutral way to present this article. Homoneutralis 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This user is the BLOCKED "POV Destroyer," who has taken a new handle to overcome his blocking. (He admits it above.) I'm not sure if doing this is acceptable Wiki behavior. The blocked user had previously tried to categorize ALL of Sheehan's supporters as "liberal," in an absurd parody of "balance" because he did not like Drudge, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh being called conservative. The germane fact is, many conservative pundits have criticized her, some of them fiercely. Stating this does not politically "attack" anyone. Not the pundits. Not conservatives. No one. --Eleemosynary 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:POV_destroyer was blocked for having an inappropriate username, according to User talk:POV_destroyer. It is not only appropriate, but desirable, for the editor to register under another name. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad the inappropriate user name is gone. --Eleemosynary 01:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In general I don't think that political labels should be used. The one exception is pundits. Journalists are expected to provide an NPOV account. There is a significant and important difference between criticism comming from partisan pundits who receive their party talking points every morning and criticism comming from a broad range of mainstream non-partisan media. Drudge and O'Reily are both partisan shills for the GOP who are more likely to toe the party line delivered by Rove than a Republican Congressman. --Gorgonzilla 01:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You would be correct in saying that some of the print commentators and organizations who have supported Sheehan have been liberal or progressive ("progressive" is actually the term many liberals now prefer), so there shouldn't be a problem labeling them as such. In fact we did have MoveOn labeled a progressive website but someone removed that, for whatever reason.

I think your question was whether her supporters--many of them regular folks, parents of soldiers, very few of them having syndicated TV or radio programs--are also liberal/progressive. The fact is that some are and some aren't. Some were originally conservative but have become disillusioned with the Iraq war. Some are still conservative as regards other subjects but are against the Iraq war. The question was whether the most prominent commentators doing their best to discredit Sheehan by whatever means (Drudge, O'Reilly, Limbaugh) are conservative.

If conservatives are thoughtful and come to believe the war is wrong, does this mean they must still support it? I may be wrong about this, but it seems, from my experience, that the commentators mentioned above would do so. Badagnani 01:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC

I think we are in violent agreement here. Yes, MoveOn should be taged progressive, same as Cato should be tagged libertarian or conservative in most cases. Drudge, O'Reily should be tagged. Individuals should only be tagged if they are working as part of a party machine, standing as a candidate or such.--Gorgonzilla 02:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know man, progressive? It has always been liberal and conservative for as long as I can remember. I think "progressive" is doublespeak. Might as well call conservatives, "patriots". Homoneutralis 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Boy, has this guy tipped his hand. Can't use "progressive," huh? Yeesh. --Eleemosynary 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)--12.145.108.11 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me stop you before you make a complete fool of yourself. The fact that you don't see the POV in using terms like "Progressives" and "Patriots" should prove to the reader that you have no business trying to be a neutral point of view editor. I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, getting blocked must have STUNG, huh? Glad to see you've moved on.--Eleemosynary 02:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, how old are you? Homoneutralis 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, just as you believe (and you are probably right at least about Limbaugh) these pundits are "shills" for the GOP, I think a lot of people would consider organizations like Moveon.org as shills for the Democrats. In fact, some might argue that Moveon.org is the shadow leadership of the Democrat Party. I myself understand which of these organization and pundits is liberal and which are conservative. But the uninitiated reading this article might be so naive as to think that there is no partisan politics behind Sheehan's support and only the evil right-wing partisans are against her. Homoneutralis 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazingly unbiased, neutral position. "Shadow leadership," "I myself understand," "the unitiated might be so naive"? And you'd like to label Sheehan's supporters out of no prejudice whatsoever? Give me a break. --Eleemosynary 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I say that because of the immense amount of power they wielded during the 2004 election. There were reports that stated they wanted to have more clout in the direction the Democrat Party was going due to the large amount of money they were contributing to Democratic candidates. But you knew that Eleemosynary didn't you? You just desperate to find something un-neutral about me aren't you? It's so unbecoming. Homoneutralis 02:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

All one needs to do is read through your posts to see how throughly biased you are. --Eleemosynary 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)--12.145.108.11 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh this is rich. Please do go on. I can't wait to see this. Homoneutralis 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I, like you, have "moved on." --Eleemosynary 02:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Editor

I have limited my participation in the issues in this article. As an editor I am primarily concerned with content appearance, clarity and conformity with Wiki neutrality standards. Perhaps it's time to unplug our discussion on this issue, as it has been resolved by consensus.

The writer with the new handle demonstrates an understanding that Wiki particpation requires having the "neutral point of view editor". The conduct illustrates a choice not be meet that standard.

This article does not need to continue to engage participants who (1) use disrespectful words as a debate technique and (2) vandalize the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Kyle, for the wise words. The anonymous vandal from Denver has resumed posting, and then claims vandalism when his edits are reverted. His justification? That the reverter didn't engage him in his latest rant on this page. Is the best way to deal with to revert him, report him, then ignore him? --Eleemosynary 06:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not my call how to elevate management of this incident. We'll just see how the sysops types proceed. What is important is the intigrity of the article conforming to Wiki protocol.

It really is incidental that there is this distraction. It's kinda like being in a classroom with all types of maturity levels. So for me I am not excited by the actions I see going on here. I've seen it all before. You cannot change people, they can only change themselves. So I spare my personal energy.

And just because a participant has an agenda does not necessarily mean that their agenda is incorrect, or that their basic position on the issue is incorrect. I certainly could not make any call what so ever on the issues between Cindy Sheehan and the President. I can only participate in editing an article to meet the standards of an encylclopedia. I know where the other appropriate forums are for debate.Kyle Andrew Brown 06:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Clear thoughts. And much welcomed.--Eleemosynary 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh

Shall I offer a solution?

Make a template for activists, people involved in politics but without any other outstanding features. Thus it wouldn't apply to Michael Moore (filmmaker) or Bush (president). Put a line that says political affiliation (if any). Put the info (member of the democratic party) in there.

211.202.17.124 09:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) , a user who just came here to translate the article into interlingua and has no political affiliation.

We need historical practice guidance for this suggestion. It might appear that a political debate forum was being created as a Wiki article and that is not what an article in Wiki is formulated to be, it's my understanding. That does not mean that there is not a forum for that type of debate forum, which it comes to mind would be totally appropriate as an ezboard forum.

Users make ongoing comments on ezboard in threads that are not subject to editorial review for the most part. I would think the back and forth in an ezboard format would be terrific. There probably is one going on right now. Ezboard is not subject to neutrality requirements. They primarily just bounce participants for abuse. But the product is a debate/discussion, not an encyclopedia.

The point here is that there are forums for unfetthered hot seated unreviewed debates that are easily set up, established, and located.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny story this morning

News Hounds is citing the "unverified" transcript that I fought to include in this Wikipedia article as proof that Fox News is spreading lies about Sheehan: [26] Homoneutralis 12:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrific find. News Hounds is a a website, that carrys this transcript. I cannot verify that the transcript is valid and state anything about News Hounds credentials. If it is a valid transcript, then perhaps there is a utility for it in the article, certainly, if valid, as a link in the listings at the bottom. From my perspective the issue has been limited to the phrase "unverified transcript" being used to introduce "fact" in an encylcopedia.

A google search on phrases from the "transcript" might produce a source that is neutral, in the sense that when it prints a transcript it is known to be deadon accurate, like off the AP. Just a suggestion.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a suprise at all, we are dealling here with a story that involves claims of forged documents. If you read the Anderson Cooper interview you will find that the questions he asks include a quotations from the ABC email that don't appear in the version you discovered. I think we need to have a sub-section specifically dealling with the issue of the dispute over the forged documents. I think it is clear that there has been a doctored copy of the memo that has been circulating, I think it is also clear that Sheehan did allege that the neo-cons are Israel-first types, which of course they are. --Gorgonzilla 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh, now you've done it. Eleemosynary will soon be all over you calling you a biased, POV-inserting charlatan who should be blocked immediately...oh, wait, no sorry, that's only if you add anything that doesn't come from George Soros or Michael Moore. Homoneutralis 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And since we are sharing personal beliefs, I think the facts show that Sheehan is lying about the Nightline email. Maybe she doesn't remember writing it, but the fact that 3 different people all received the email from her and all 3 claim that it wasn't altered is pretty overwhelming. I think she is just worried that the strong rhetoric it contains will diminish her current political capital. And I was not originally talking about the Nightline email, I was referring to the transcript of a speech she delivered at San Francisco State University in support of Lynne Stewart. Homoneutralis 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

E-mails are easy to forge (see the RFC on SMTP protocol). The fact that several sources received the message does not mean it is legit. Or that it's not. --Arnoldlover 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the personal attacks have resumed from Homoneutralis (formerly "POV Destroyer") Well, that was quick. Not sure what he means in the Soros/Moore paragraph; I have no problem with what Gorgonzilla or KAB wrote. But, according to his second paragraph, Homoneutralis has now decided that Sheehan is a liar. So, that would tend to, um, "temper" his NPOV editing ability somewhat. I'll be watching his edits closely. But I also agree with the earlier poster that, based on his actions here, he no longer need be engaged in this forum. --Eleemosynary 18:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just warning Gorgonzilla that admitting that he believes the rhetoric that Sheehan writes about "neo-cons" and Israel was liable to get him a firm chastising by you. I suppose you will be watching his edits very closely now huh? You are an entertaining character my friend. Homoneutralis 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

References to the DiscoverTheNetworks "transcript" [27] were marked "unverified" by NPOV when I first posted a link to the speech and gave the context the speech was given in. All of this has since been erased as POV or heresay. Albeit, I have not seen an independent account of the same speech. But in many cases AP News is the only source for transcripts of speeches. Do note that recording a transcript of a speech given by what might be seen as ultra left radicals may not be of interest to the mainstream news organizations.

Also, one might say that the DiscoverTheNetworks as group is headed by the ex-communist turned ultra-conservative David Horowitz and may not be an unbiased news source. Although they do have a conservative news slant, I still believe that the copy is probably an accurate transcript of the speeches given. It's clearly not opinion.

The page appears to have been created by John Perazzo, the author of The Myths That Divide Us almost a month after the speech was given. It does take about a month to transcribe what may not have been a noteworthy speech at the time and post it.

Take a look at the html source of the webpage.

 <o:DocumentProperties>
 <o:Author>John Perazzo</o:Author>
 <o:LastAuthor>John Perazzo</o:LastAuthor>
 <o:Revision>3</o:Revision>
 <o:TotalTime>11</o:TotalTime>
 <o:Created>2005-05-24T03:49:00Z</o:Created>
 <o:LastSaved>2005-05-24T04:00:00Z</o:LastSaved>
 <o:Pages>6</o:Pages>
 <o:Words>5527</o:Words>
 <o:Characters>31509</o:Characters>
 <o:Lines>262</o:Lines>
 <o:Paragraphs>63</o:Paragraphs>
 <o:CharactersWithSpaces>38695</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
 <o:Version>9.2720</o:Version>
 </o:DocumentProperties>

Yes, this can all be forged. But it fits the facts. It appears to be a complete transcript of Sheehan's speech given on April 27, 2005 before her vigil began. At the time, Sheehan was still unknown in the mainstream.

I believe the "unverified" tag is not necessary on this reference and it should be quotable.

Kgrr 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The transcript is unverified, corroborated by no reputable source, and the html information does nothing to change this. Horowitz's website has considerably more than a "conservative news slant"; he has, in fact, composed an "enemies list" on his website of anyone he considers part of the "American Left." The website from which the "transcript" originates may be as far from an objective source as it is possible to get.--Eleemosynary 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Links in summary paragrah

Without consideration of the content of the three links in the opening paragraph I am not sure that the opening is the appropriate placement of links. If the links are appropriate to the article they should be placed in content and with perspective in the later body of the article, and more likely as links at the bottom. Before the links are placed in context their should be appropriate discussion in Talk about what the links are about and the reasoning for them. I kinda think the links to web sites/news sources at the bottom of the article are a very useful device. However, I caution that in time those links may become cold.

In anycase, the summary opening paragraph should not be cluttered and should not in that placement point to explanatory material. The format of the article should accommodate appropriate in context links. Any links in the summary to news sources tends to lead the reader down the path of directed partisan view point without context.

It is my understanding that consensus has agreed that the summary paragraph is not to be used for introducing partisan positions. The format of the article has a clear division in format where the critics/advocates of each position are separated and the separation is editorially clear. The summary is not designed to bring separation and context. That is the function of the following sections.

The task is to determine whether the links are appropriate and where is so, in the body of the article they belong in neutral context. Kyle Andrew Brown 12:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the links there in response to a vandal's removing of the sentence. I have no problem if the links are removed, or placed elsewhere in the article. --Eleemosynary 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Article protection

It seems that most of the vandalism/edit wars are coming from one User with an IP from Level 3 Communications and mostly late into the night. Maybe protecting the article from edits during the night in North America would eliminate this. Homoneutralis 16:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The story moves each day, but not so fast that it requires hourly updates. I suggest that we try to work on a schedule where the page is locked for most of the time and is only unlocked for a short edit window or a few hours once or twice a day. In the meantime use the talk page as a clearinghouse for proposed changes. --Gorgonzilla 17:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

So, umm, how long exactly does this article stay locked? Homoneutralis 14:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

War of Distraction

The most unfortunate thing about this story is that it is distracting us from researching what else is going on in the world right now. I have spent at least 30 hours doing various edits on this article, and during that time, things have been happening to which I wasn't educating myself.

For example, how many of us understand the ramifications of the Hubbert Peak? How many of us notice what is happening to the stock prices to the largest corporation in the USA, and probably the one that employs the most people globally... Wal-Mart? How many of us have noticed that DR-CAFTA, The Energy Bill, and the Highway Bill were all signed, and what they all mean to us? Did anyone notice that the Army plans four-more years in Iraq?

Sheehan is clearly important because she is the catalyst for a national debate about our place in the world. Unfortunately, in a lot of ways, the public does not recognize that each one of us is causing this war. We are continuing to use oil and spend money at the same rate. Few people see the connection between the economy and the global military strategy. Fewer still see how the rich are playing this global game... and how we are playing this game as well.

I am not advocating for or against Sheehan. I am suggesting that there are connections from this to things about which the public isn't aware. If we take our roles seriously as volunteer historians, we need to find connections and bring them to the light of day, and in a way so that the public understands the big picture of what is happening and why.

Americanus 22:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

please wikify PNAC Neo-Con

In the section Rhetoric, there is the phrase and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda.

Please wikify PNAC into PNAC or better: PNAC, since many people have no idea that PNAC exists or what it is. Probably also a good idea to wikify Neo-con. For easy click-n-paste, here are the links with some of the square brackets missing:

Project for the New American Century|PNAC]] [[Neoconservatism in the United States|Neo-Con

Boud 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Unlock the article

It can't stay locked forever. Let's say it will be locked overnight in North America. Homoneutralis 17:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - locking is not a solution for a current event article. Its better to temp-ban all the vandals anyway. -St|eve 18:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan's Rhetoric?

The defintion for rhetoric is:

Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

  1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
  2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric

While the first definition is what might have been meant here, rehtoric is used more in the second light these days as a term to imply that deciet or wrongness of the message a person is saying.

He points of view are opinion, and so the heading should be changed to better reflect a neutral position. Maybe "Cindy Sheehan's Poin t of View" or "Cindy Cheehan's Stance" or something.

What? The word "rhetoric" has by no means taken on a negative connotation. The term is fine, NPOV, and should stay. --Eleemosynary 19:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

>>>>>>> I have changed the headline to read "speaking style", as that sounds a lot less politically charged and conveys the same message.

"Speaking style" is too vague, and does not convey the same message as "rhetoric." "Speaking style" could be fast, slow, staccato, legato, inflected, monotone, etc. It has nothing to do with content. I'm changing the heading back to "Rhetoric."--Eleemosynary 02:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Vacation

Stating in a revert to a revert "we will compromise" is not as appropriate as having discussion on the talk page.

Also, I believe that stating in the context of the article that the President is either on a five week vacation or a five week retreat is intended to be inflammatory. While it is true that the President is in Texas for five weeks and it is true it is his second trip since April, the use of vacation and retreat in the context here implies he is loafing around. He well may be. But I would maintain that the President is actually working near the level he works at at the White House (and I'll be fair, I'm not stating what That level of work is...).

So anyway, I would ask a rethink on this discription of the Texas location. If the text was written and a consensus agreed that there is (which there is) a dispute as to whether the President is being maligned for being on vacation for five weeks while the war continues and others say that he is actually working in Texas I think that is a compromise that is correct although I do not state whether the discussion is actually relevant here.

In any case on this issue could we please come to a consensus on the Talk page and not battle it out on the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term "vacation," the president himself does not object to the use of this term. Regarding my recent edit, you are mistaken that my edit was a "revert to a revert." It was not. The term was originally "vacation," then "retreat," then I changed it to "vacation retreat." In order to research this change (which I did not make frivolously) I did a review of sources (mainstream and partisan) and found that "vacation" was used to describe the five-week period in the majority of sources. "Vacation retreat" was also occasionally used, and "retreat" was used primarily in reference to the President's brief stay at a resort in Idaho. Thus, I do not believe the use of "vacation" to be inaccurate or POV, but an accurate representation of what the President is doing (and it is almost certainly the reason Sheehan selected this time period to stage her protest; as she probably knew, Michael Moore had already in his film pointed out how often the President vacations, in contrast to earlier presidents). Whether the President claims to work during his vacation or not is immaterial; a vacation is a vacation and it is clear that the President is taking part in daily or near-daily leisure activities which take up much of his day. However, "vacation retreat" is acceptable to me. Let's have more discussion on this, preferably under a heading other than my username. Badagnani 22:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have just re-read your comments and realized that the term "working vacation" has also appeared in sources, although not in very many. That may be another possibility. Badagnani 22:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"reason Sheehan selected this time period to stage her protest" I like this idea you brought out; perhaps as a wrap around the vacation thing, something like, "Sheehan took advantage of the President's announced five day vacation in Texas ...to stage ..." When we say the President announced that puts the onus on him calling it a vacation and ties it into Sheehan conveniently.Kyle Andrew Brown 23:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

anti-Israel comments

I kind of liked my version of the paragraph on the email Sheehan allegedly wrote making anti-Israel remarks. Any kind of controversy like this is difficult to describe and I thought the original version could be more precise and avoid repetition and extraneous information. Badaghani reverted it because he felt the original was more concise. Its a little longer because I chose to quote more of the email, mainly because I thought it was very interesting. I present it here for discussion.

A controversy has erupted over an e-mail that Sheehan sent to ABC's Nightline in which she allegedly insinuated that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to benefit Israel. Sheehan wrote the letter out of frustration that the show "disrespected" her. She sent the letter to anti-Zionist activist James Morris who forwarded it at her request to a producer at ABC News. Sheehan also sent a copy of the message directly to Tony Tersch, who posted it on the "bullyard" Google group on March 18, 2005. [28] In the version of the message posted to Google Groups, Sheehan says that her son "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." She continues: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy." Sheehan claims that the email was modified by James Morris to support his own personal agenda. [29]

[30] However, James Morris denies altering the email before sending it along to Nightline and Tony Tersch posted the email to Google after receiving it directly from Sheehan. [31] Sheehan also gave a speech to the Veterans for Peace convention stating, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine". [32]

GabrielF 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not tracking this aspect, but I caution an approach "she allegedly insinuated". I kinda think an encyclopedia entry is best when it actually quotes what a person states. Quoting a quote, or saying somewhere someone said she said... That's not helpful. If you're advocating the issue's placement in the article I suggest that a straight forward quote from an authentic resource be made. It's my understanding, tho, there is a problem authenticating the email. If the email is not authenticated it goes in the realm of hearsay. That's not encyclopedic.

Maybe, you could get around this by quoting - if in fact there is a quote - Sheehan saying she said "..." about what people said about her feelings about Israel.

Activism before Casey Sheehan's death

The article has been edited to reflect that Sheehan was a political activist before Casey's death. Can someone point to a link verifying this? Thanks. Eleemosynary 04:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I could not find anything to support political activity of any sort in Vacaville by either Cindy or Patrick Sheehan - no speeches to city council, no sign of protesting the war when it began...

I also find this to be entirely inconsistent with her remarks to the reporter article of 6/24/2004 [33] where she said

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

I would of thought if she was against the war at that time her comments to the reporter may have been a bit different. She may have grieved in saying that she opposed her son in joining the military to begin with.

It's also clear from the statement from her husband, Patrick that he at the time had a lot of respect for President Bush:

"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," Pat said.

I seriously question the claim that Cindy Sheehan was an avid anti-war activist before her son's death without some sort of proof. Reference please.

Kgrr 14:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I read recently that Sheehan did oppose the Iraq War (or at least his participation in it) before her son was killed, and tried to discourage him from going back there. Can't find the source easily but it is out there. That doesn't mean she was politically active but it does show that she was against it. After her son was killed the weapons of mass destruction were not found, and in fact the last inspection team under Duelfer simply gave up, not having found anything, and Sheehan's suspicions as to the real reasons behind the war were confirmed--that is apparently when she "lost it" and began to publicly and actively question and criticize the Iraq war. Badagnani 19:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So where is your reference to this? It's still heresay that Sheehan opposed the invasion. From what I can tell, she was all for it until the facts came out after the war was under way.

I think he rushed into this war -–this invasion –- without having proper intelligence. And the reasons he went are so clearly wrong -–from his false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to there being no connection between Iraq and Saddam and Osama bin Laden. He diverted attention and troops and resources from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda to Iraq.[34] Had she been against the Iraq invasion, she would have said something different.

(looking for more quotes)

Kgrr 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Used by the left" and "demonized by the right"

I observe that many right-wing slanted publications often write about Cindy Sheehan as being "Used by the left" to further some agenda. And simultaneously, left-wing slanted publications write about Sheehan as "demonized by the right" ... is this something worthwhile to note in the Criticism and Criticism of the critics sections? Kgrr 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It could be useful to state something like "both sides of the political spectrum have labeled Sheehan: the right wing commentators often described Sheehan as being "used by the left" while left wing commentators often described Sheehan as being "demonized by the right."Kyle Andrew Brown 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Pinko Mom POV near top of article

Please correct or remove these two statements: 1) She is sometimes referred to by the media as the "Pinko Mom." in first paragraph 2) Cindy Sheehan, in a Liberal-Pinko-Commi Propaganda commercial released by Gold Star Families for Peace in August 2005 under picture

Kgrr 14:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just vandalism. It has been fixed. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "anti-war"

I'm not sure what "anti-war" means in context of this article. I'm guessing that Sheehan opposed America's involvement in the war. It's not clear if she also opposed Iraq's involvement, or that of any guerrilla forces after the UN recognized the new goverment.

I think the article should make clear what aspects of the war she opposed. Uncle Ed 19:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the only public statements she has made in this regard is against the US-led Iraq War and Afghanistan. Homoneutralis 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you using the word "war" in the sense of "military campaign" here? It seems like it. I think Wikipedia should distinguish between war as a conflict between 2 sides and one side's "conduct of the war". Then it becomes clear whether the protester is against what both sides are doing or mostly / chiefly against what one side is doing.

Some people use the term "US-led Iraq War" to refer to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (i.e., the US/UK military act of invading the country). In this context, Iraqi forces fought against the invasion, and the conflict between the two sides was "the Iraq War (2003)".

It would look strange to speak of World War II as "Germany's War" or "Japan's War". Even those who considered them to be the aggressors (or even the "evil side" don't use such terminology, because they want to acknowledge that there were two sides to the war: the Axis and the Allies - the war was not waged solely by the Axis. Uncle Ed 19:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Wasn't there a Korean War and a Vietnam War? Homoneutralis 20:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear on Ed's comments either. What is your suggestion for change? It is clear Sheehan is against both the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, with a primary reason being the lack of clear justification for said war. Should we be even more clear and say she is an activist "against the unprovoked and unexplained U.S.-led war of aggression and continued occupation of Iraq"? I think the concise way we have it now makes it clear to the readers what she is against. If you have other ideas, let's hear them. Badagnani 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That's right. This was discussed a couple of weeks ago under the heading "Peace Activist or Anti-War Activist?" She calls herself a peace activist so that's what we originally called her, then someone objected to that and we changed it to "anti-war." Then someone objected to that and we changed to "anti-Iraq-war." In my opinion, as during the Vietnam era, anti-war is fine, or "peace activist" is fine. Both make it clear what side the person is on. Badagnani 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Badagnani, just "against the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq" is sufficient. I don't think Wikipedia itsel should assert that the invasion was unprovoked, unexplained, or was a war of aggression. Sheehan and many other may advocate this point of view, of course, and if they do we should certainly say so (see Wikipedia:POV). Uncle Ed 21:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Describing Sheehan in the opening paragraph as an American "anti-U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq activist" doesn't flow very well, however accurate it might be. It seems clear that, as in Vietnam, if the U.S. got out the "war" would be over, as it was the U.S. which started it in the first place. So personally I think "anti-Iraq war activist" is accurate and clearly conveys Sheehan's position to the reader. Badagnani 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No such thing as "POV vandalism"

Let's find a way to deal with the reported statements Sheehan made:

... well known for her statements like "This country isn't worth dying for," and "George Bush is the biggest terrorist." She said these things while claiming to support her son who died in Iraq after repeatedly volunteering to serve his country in the military.

I think she meant Iraq wasn't worth dying for. And if she has made anti-Bush comments while in the spotlight, that might be worthy of including in an encyclopedia article about her. Uncle Ed 22:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It appeared to be an intentionally bad faith edit by the same anon vandal who had just inserted 'anti' in front of US. If someone engages in vandalism I go into revert first mode on later edits. --Gorgonzilla 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW most dictionaries do not contain a list of ad-hominem attacks in their articles. --Gorgonzilla 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gorgonzilla. The article is getting far too long as it is, with a distinct bent toward parsing every phrase Sheehan has spoken against Bush and/or the war. 10 military families (five supporting Sheehan, five against) are quoted in the article. This needs summarizing and cleaning up. --Eleemosynary 00:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan has said and written some controversial things. Probably not controversial to those who agree with her. The story so far has been about a woman who her supporters say has earned the right to say whatever she wants without being criticized. I think most will agree that no one is above criticism. Military families speaking out against her is part of the developing story. And presenting a Wikipedia article without mentioning her past political statements and writings the reader would not get a clear view of exactly who this woman is. And I know how interested you all are in providing a clear, neutral viewpoint into this story. Homoneutralis 12:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The world according to Faux News is not a clear, neutral viewpoint, nor is editing their GOP talking points of the day into the article. O'Reilly and Drunge are the last folk to go around complaining about people being inconsistent. It is somewhat ironic to watch these obscene partisan caricatures complaining about others being 'partisan'. When Al Franken held O'Reilly to a similar standard to the one O'Reilly tries to apply to Sheehan O'Reilly went to the Fox lawyers in tears. Why on earth should the views of a cry-baby chickenhawk be relevant to this story? --Gorgonzilla 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Gorgie, I didn't put any of the pundit views into the article. I found that Sheehan herself was her own best critic. Try neutrality sometime Gorgie, it's really pretty fun. Homoneutralis 15:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"Homoneutralis" (formerly "POV Destroyer") is reverting to his old ways. Here's his method: skew the article toward a right-wing bias; blame anyone who challenges the edit as a biased Sheehan supporter, a George Soros/Michael Moore acolyte, or a vandal; and throw in a snide remark for good measure. If more than one person disagrees with his edit, he'll usually claim he's being "ganged up on" by a cadre of leftist editors. Check the talk page and archive for substantiation of this, in which he floats a theory that the most thorough Wiki editors are leftists by definition.

Well, he's shown his bias again, in the above sentence "the story so far has been about a woman who her supporters say has earned the right to say whatever she wants without being criticized." Now, does that sound like "neutrality" or some sort of (dare I say it) bias?

"Homo" (I only abbreviate your name because you have a fetish for using nicknames e.g., "Gorgie" for Gorgonzila), you have a clear anti-Sheehan bias. It's not neutral. That's perfectly okay, and you're welcome to start an "I hate Cindy Sheehan" blog. But you're not free to make biased edits and then scream about your nonexistent "neutrality." It's as odious a rhetorical dodge as "Fair and Balanced," and even a more transparent one.

To quote KAB, "The writer with the new handle ["Homoneutralis" aka "POV Destroyer"] demonstrates an understanding that Wiki participation requires having the "neutral point of view editor". The conduct illustrates a choice not [met by] that standard. This article does not need to continue to engage participants who (1) use disrespectful words as a debate technique and (2) vandalize the article."

Eleemosynary 00:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Oh boy, you are always good for a laugh. You see Eleemosynary, you would be scared to know how neutral I am. The trouble is you cannot see that neutrality through your own POV blinders. If you think I have made POV edits, please by all means, list them here. I'll be waiting... Homoneutralis 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I think I'll let any readers who are interested scan the history of the article, this talk page, and its archive for your predominantly biased edits, followed by your whining and complaining. Yes, you've made a few unbiased edits, but you've been overwhelmingly biased against the article's subject. No matter how many handles you'd like to create that scream "I am neutral! I swear! Really! I'm the only one here who is not biased! I mean it! Everyone else is biased, not me!," your actions speak far louder than your words. Pathetic. Eleemosynary 21:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask, just how old are you? I welcome people to examine my edit history. Please do. And once again, please cite an example of one of these edits that you feel is biased. I am waiting excitedly for an example. Homoneutralis 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Check your edit history for an example. I'm not playing the "example/refute game" with you. Perhaps when I have some time to kill, I'll post a detailed history. For now, I'll just remark that it was biased of you a few weeks ago to fill the page with anti-Sheehan quotes from military families, while adding no pro-Sheehan quotes from military families. You have also been begging to substantiate the unverified transcript from David Horowitz's anti-left website since time immemorial, a good sign of where your biases lie. Your edit history of late is a constant cycle of links to posts about anti-Sheehan rallies. Lastly, you accuse anyone on this site who refutes your bias with claims that THEY are biased. You bluster, whine, and protesteth too much. When you have no points to make, "how old are you" or some other snide remark are your flimsy shields.

That enough for you so far? Eleemosynary 00:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No actually. I'm a balance kind of guy. I think there are already enough editors providing plenty of facts and quotes supporting Sheehan. So I ask myself, "What does the other side say?" So I research and find these things which are factual. If there was nothing but criticism of Sheehan in this article, I would be looking for the other side that supports her to balance it out. I'm not sure why you don't understand this, unless of course you are a blatant partisan who thinks that anyone who is looking for another side to a story is just your sworn enemy, the "right-wing smear merchant". I think you need to reexamine your ideology and your maturity. Which is why I keep asking for your age. If you cannot let yourself even imagine that there are two sides to a story, then you probably shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 01:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just as I figured. Same tactics as before. Just to recap: You filled the page with anti-Sheehan quotes from military families BEFORE there was a single pro-Sheehan quote from a military family. You've decided for yourself (based on no evidence) that "there are already enough editors providing plenty of facts and quotes supporting Sheehan." This dovetails nicely with your other accusations of bias on this Talk page. And then... well, you degenerate into your usual bluster: "blatant partisan," "reexamine your ideology and maturity" and your time-honored "I know you are but what am I" defense, encapsulated in your last sentence. There are indeed MORE than "two sides" to this story, but your crusade against what you perceive to be a liberal bias in the edits is transparent. And your ad hominem attacks on the editors of this page, in previous posts, are noted. Eleemosynary 01:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Larry King

Homoneutralis, rather than just reverting back the use of the word editorial, could you kindly just go to Talk and help to work out just exactly the usage you are trying to convey. As written it appears that Sheehan gave an editorial on Larry King. That, again, is not what guests are said to do on Larry King. Please indicate in Talk what is a better way to say what you want to say. I am not going to revert your change at this time because I believe that it is more appropriate after a revert to discuss it in Talk than engage in waste of time reverting. You appear to be referencing something in your explanation of your re revert but whatever you are referencing is not in the text. In any case, I don't think Sheehan gave an editorial on Larry King. Was she stating some defense to some editorial somewheres else?Kyle Andrew Brown 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, she did not write or say those things on the Larry King Live show. She wrote about her experience on the Larry King Live show well after the show was finished. I don't know how clearer I can be in explaining it. It was an editorial about her experience on the Larry King Live show. Homoneutralis 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, now in the content as now written I understand fully what was the intention. Thank you.Kyle Andrew Brown 19:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Rhetoric

I kinda remember I think when this section got renamed Rhetoric but forgot the dynamics. Right now it kinda looks to me as a modestly negative caption for discussion to follow. In everyday political conversation to say "Their rhetoric..." implies a long windedness. Sheehan issues statements and the statements should stand alone without caption interpretation. If someone says "She's full of rhetoric" that's another story, but not one placed editorially as a neutral caption.

I dont want to head it "Sheehan issued these statements" its too long... But is there a more appropriate caption?Kyle Andrew Brown 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph

Kgrr, we're trying to LEAVE THE SUMMARY PARAGRAPH ALONE. We have had a very quiet week once we stopped working on it. I believe consensus has already worked out that the hyper links to other documents belong in other locations in the article and not in the summary paragraph. Kindly move your link elsewhere.Kyle Andrew Brown 19:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone has already removed the reference. She is called all sorts of things from traitor to peace mom by the media. I'm not sure if everyone agrees to the term. The link and reference was there to substantiate it. Sorry. If the statement is controvertial, then remove the whole statement from the summary. Otherwise quote where it comes from. Kgrr 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Kgrr, the way the Summary paragraph rests is after consensus was reached. The statement as constructed bridges dynamic between competing editorial camps, without removing reference to the content entirely. We are asking that within the article are embedded fact based references to issues of competing editorial camps. Try embedding your quote elsewhere, it may in fact be useful.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Kgrr, it has absolutely nothing to do with "my not wanting the sentence". If you choose to use the content and the link place it elsewhere in the article. We have fought for weeks over the first paragraph. Leave it alone!Kyle Andrew Brown 12:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Casey Sheehan

Did Cindy Sheehan really want her son in the military? It sounds like Cindy Sheehan was hoping he would become a chaplain. How did she feel about him re-enlisting?

Did Casey Sheehan re-enlist knowing that the "mission was accomplished" (according to Bush) on a peacekeeping mission? Or, did he full know that he could go back into combat?

Kgrr 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Always Anti-war?

Was Cindy Sheehan always anti-war, or did her opinion about the war evolve from doubt to anti-war after her son was killed?

Did she participate in anti-war demonstrations in 2003 before the Iraq invasion?

Kgrr 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Cindy Sheehan is blunt, everyone agrees that she's blunt, no one denies that she's blunt"

What does this lead sentence have to do with the subsequent discussion of her "rhetoric"? The section discusses allegations that she has lied about the content of an e-mail she sent to several people, and comparisons of George Bush to Hitler. How are either of these things an example of "bluntness"?? People think she's lied about the e-mail, and that her Nazi comparisons are offensive and absurd, but not "blunt". Babajobu 22:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a selective reading of the contents of the section, as those aren't the only statements examined. Sheehan, for example, has said that Bush lied. This statement might be offensive and absurd to Bush supporters, but not to others.

Further, the Nazi comparisons, though inflammatory, are not entirely absurd, in the following regard: in 1939 Hitler led an unprovoked German invasion of Poland, claiming that Poland had attacked Germany at various locations along the Polish-German border. It isn't generally known that in August 1939 Germany actually produced faked "border incidents," in which concentration camp prisoners were dressed as Polish soldiers, then killed and left at the areas where these incidents were supposed to have occurred. This was photographed for the international press, providing the documentary "proof" of the need to invade Poland.[35] Maybe Sheehan had this parallel unprovoked invasion (complete with falsified "documentation") in mind when she made the statement, maybe not. In either case, the comparison is certainly "blunt."

I have added a sentence in the opening paragraph, as per your suggestion, stating that some of Sheehan's statements have created controversy. I think that is fair to say. Badagnani 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying "Bush lied" is not particularly blunt (certainly not absurd and offensive), it's a pretty standard allegation, and either you agree with it or you don't. The Nazi comparisons are patently absurd. You could likewise compare Clinton with Hitler: he bombed the only product pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, while Hitler also compromised enemy people's access to crucial medicines. Jimmy Carter was like Hitler in that he massively financed Afghani armed attacks against the Soviets, the same way Hitler financed Franco's attacks on Spanish Republicans. These arguments are absurd. Hitler was a genocidal fascist who sought to exterminate lesser peoples. Jimmy Carter was not Hitler, Clinton was not Hitler, and neither was Bush, no matter what absurdly tenuous analogies people may choose to draw in any of their cases. But if you don't think it's absurd to compare Bush and Hitler, then I don't think you'd be capable of recognizing NPOV if it bit you in your rear end. Babajobu 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you that these are all excellent points. Badagnani 23:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Nazi reference, just one point of clarity: I don't think Sheehan said that Bush was "like Hitler"; as far as I know she used the German "Fuehrer," of which I'm not sure of the exact literal meaning. In context, perhaps she meant this in the sense of a "supreme leader" who must never be questioned? Badagnani 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are not excellent points, they're ludicrous. I was using them as examples of ludicrous arguments. Oh, brother. And forty-nine percent of the country is falling all over themselves venting about George Bush's crimes (real and imagined)...does that sound like a "supreme leader who must never be questioned"? No, what it sounds like is Saddam Hussein, a genuine totalitarian dictator, rather than Bush, a democratically elected President. Anyway, forget it, I can't have a serious conversation with someone who is not familiar with the German term "Fuhrer". Babajobu

Regarding the characterization of Sheehan's "Bush lied" allegation as "blunt," your point is well taken. Sheehan does, however, make a point of repeating this allegation (in all caps, no less) in her column explaining her bluntness, as an example of the things she is willing to say outright (which others in the public eye may believe but hesitate to verbalize or write). I think she believes that the statement "Bush lied" is, indeed, blunt, for the reason that few major politicians or news commentators (although she is neither of these) have used these exact words in reference to Bush's former justifications for the Iraq invasion/occupation. Badagnani 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what is the literal meaning of the German "Fuehrer"? (By the way, you spelled this without umlaut or substitute "ue," which would make it a different word.) I don't think everyone knows that and it would help with our understanding of Sheehan's use of the term. Badagnani 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It roughly means "leader", but like "il duce" (again without the Euro-diacritics) it's a way of referring to the fascist dictator who assumed the title. Babajobu 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no real difference between the word "Führer" and "Fuehrer" other than that Fuehrer uses 'ue', the accepted replacement for the umlaut character 'ü' which is not available on many keyboards. The word führer simply means leader. Since Adolph Hitler, the word has become synonymous with tyrant. Capitalization of the word refers to Adolph Hitler. BTW "il duce" refers to the other fascist dictator - Benito Mussolini Kgrr 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Protest, Demostration, Peace Camp

I see Kgrr's interest in terminology. I want to be careful his word edit is not undoing a prior consensus. I do see, also, Kgrr referring elsewhere as a peace camp. I haven't myself considered it to be a protest or a demonstration. It has been under the guise of just wanting a discussion with the President" (Is it a "request for an appointment to see the President?....). So actually I'm leaning away from Protest and Demonstration. But I can see the opposing camp leaning to labeling it a protest for political purposes. Interesting, Kgrr.Kyle Andrew Brown 13:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In the chronology, the peace camp activities have been labeled as Demonstration Week 1, Demonstration Week 2... Some other author/editor changed my original headings in the chronology. I assume the new headings have reached consensus.

I merely changed my reference to the protest/rally/demonstration/peace camp to a term that was already in use in the chronology. Here is the definition of demonstration I am referring to: 5. A public display of group opinion, as by a rally or march: peace demonstrations. The reason I chose this word is because a protest is a solitary act and a demonstration is clearly a group act. Kgrr 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say it is a demonstration. It is not a protest because she is not there specifically to protest the war. It is a demonstration because she is demonstrating her resolve to not leave the spot until she meets with the President. - Kuzain 23:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, I really have not tried to use words that are politically charged. I am merely using the words according to their recognized meaning. Kuzain, I appreciate the support. Look up the word protest - it does not convey the group effort. Kgrr 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of left-wing financing

Who is paying for this anti-American production in Crawford, Texas? According to Darrel Ankarlo, ankarlo.net, George Soros/Moveon.org, Code Pink, Ben Cohen (Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream), the Socialist Worker Party, Communist Party, Feminist Peace Network, Young Communist League, USA (NY) Young Democratic Socialists, (NY) Democratic Underground, and John and Elizabeth Edwards are the larger donors.

the truth about the 'protest'

and here's a picture of one of the many 'spontaneous' happening at camp gimme-the-money: File:Http://198.65.14.85/Art/NewsArt/cindy05/03mediacrosses.jpg

Wow, a whole bunch of Democrats paid for a Democratic protest? Scandal of the century in my opinion. --kizzle 23:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You "corroborating link" is a viciously POV right-wing website, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. Eleemosynary 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush supporters outnumbered Sheehan supporters?

Star-Telegram Jack Douglas jr

CRAWFORD - President Bush's supporters poured into Crawford by the thousands Saturday, for the first time outnumbering war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, who began a vigil here three weeks ago, demanding a personal meeting with the vacationing president to talk about her son's death in Iraq.

With police security tight and the heat intense, tempers flared, and traffic was clogged. But by late afternoon, only two people had been arrested for what the Secret Service described as a minor "attitude thing."

An estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people attended a pro-Bush rally in Crawford, waving flags and pledging allegiance to U.S. troops. At times, they accused Sheehan of dishonoring the death of her son, Casey, who was in the Army.

Jeannine McEwin, 69, said she and her husband, Harold, made the six-hour trip from their home on Toledo Bend Lake, a mile from the Louisiana border, to help conservatives overcome the numeric dominance that anti-war demonstrators have had in Crawford since Sheehan came to town Aug. 6.

"The left has had so much publicity, and we have sat back and done nothing," McEwin said. "We have allowed them to take over."

Harold McEwin, 70, said he came to support Bush and the war in Iraq.

"When I was 8 years old, I walked the streets of Shreveport picking up metal coat hangers to be used to build bombs and bullets" for World War II, he said. "I started out my patriotism right there."

An additional 800 to 1,000 war protesters were on hand Saturday, many of them shuttled from the Peace House in Crawford to encampments along Prairie Chapel Road, which leads to the entrances to Bush's ranch. The day's events, closely monitored by police on the ground and in helicopters, easily broke the record for the number of people participating in demonstrations in Crawford since Bush turned his ranch into the "Western White House."

Oh that's right, because believing the Iraq was a mistake means that you don't support the troops. Gotcha. And I'm not so sure "left-wing extremist" is an honest attempt at NPOV. --kizzle 23:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

my only complaint here is that everytime I made a reference to an article stating how many people were at the camp 30, 704, 800, 1000, 3000 or 4000, the reference was removed. I have no idea why people are offended over the number from either side. Kgrr 01:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be because the numbers of Bush supporters reported have widely varied from article to article. This has been noted in the timelines.Eleemosynary 08:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable quote

"Secondly, when I got arrested and the officers lifted me out I was afraid that America would see my underwear and that tickled me."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/why-i-was-smiling-and-hur_b_7970.html