Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Cleaning Up

I've been cleaning up this page and combining info the past few days and I've noticed a few things.

If we want to have a NPOV on this, any celebrated as an... or hero's welcome needs to be removed, as they're subjective.

We don't need to know about every little thing she did each day. Who cares what she ate or what she did one evening or if she sat in traffic. A timeline/chrolonogy should only highlight the most important events of the day, not everyone. This isn't a biography, its an article

This is an article on Cindy Sheehan...not Bush nor people that support Bush nor people who support Sheehan. If there is a wordy discription of what someone else was doing...it should be removed, as those other people are Sheehan.

All of which I have done, and those are my reasons for doing so. Just because someone is in the news, it doesn't mean that everything that person has ever done should be in an article.

Squiggyfm 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hailing Chavez ...

Sheesh, this is a tough audience, that clearly is having NPOV issues. I have no particular issue with Sheehan per se, but it seemed to me worthy in the interest of balance to point out that Venezuela financed her recent trip to South America. Within moments of posting the relevant news article, and adding the edit that Chavez's foreign ministry bankrolled her journey, not only was it deleted, but some person (who only seems to have an IP address, not a user name) sends me a message calling me a "vandal." Do folks usually get so persnickety about minor edits & tweaks to try to produce balance? (a newbie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBob (talk • contribs)

If it's true that Chavez's government financed Sheehan's trip, that's news to me. It's certainly notable and probably should be included. But each time the statement was added, there was no verification by a link that would explain this. That's been the standard for this article almost since the beginning. Badagnani 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, I have added the {{citeneeded}} template to the statement that Chavez financed Sheehan's trip. I suspect that the statement is false. How long should we maintain the article this way before deleting this statement (assuming the editor who added the statement, LittleBob, does not follow through with a citation)? --Asbl 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the citation http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060124/en_afp/venezuelasocial_060124235441 Sheehan herself admits that Venezuela was her paymaster on that particular jaunt. Amazing, isn't it, that such things a) don't get more coverage despite their notability and b) that folks here would rush to censor and censure it. Sigh. Littlebob 03:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the responses we're submitting here, you'd have found that, at least for myself, I did state very clearly that if it were verifiable that Chavez's government financed Sheehan's South American trip, that it would be notable and probably worth a mention here. There's no censoring going on and hope you agree that verifiability is important. (I think you do, because you went the extra mile to hunt up the citation.) Badagnani 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, no intent on my part to imply that you were saying that it wasn't notable. Just saddened on my end that so many so-called Wikipedians would prefer to keep such information hidden from the light of day (and worse, to hurl epithets around -- I rec'd some choice ones as messages) I'll put the information about the trip funding back in. Anyone want to take a bet on how long it will last before being reverted by a political hack? Littlebob 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original author. But we have a bunch of self righteous people playing politics and they are trying to censor unfavorable information about Sheehan. I think we should just dedicate a section about Sheehans communist connections it's too big of a topic to ignored. I feel that it should be explained.

JJstroker 08:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

JJstroker 08:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

heh, it's already been censored. I suppose it's hopeless to even try to get within 10 miles of NPOV on this one, eh? 70.112.27.252 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please show me the info that you are trying to put up? I will try to put it up for you if its relevant although it's going to be tough with the pc mods.

JJstroker 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlawful Conduct

Ok, what exactly does this charge mean, anyway? There is no Wiki article for it and it seems a very vague thing to charge someone with. Can anyone shed some light on this? Ionesco 15:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but it's probably the catch-all charge for misdemeanors defined outside the penal code which don't specify any penalty. --James S. 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is the legal wording to describe the charge against her and I imagine that the wording of it is so vague because there are a lot of little things that they didn't want to have 300 different charges (reduce courtroom paperwork). Similarly, disorderly conduct is not real specific. It might be more understandable if we called it "unlawful demonstration", but someone would likely complain that that's not what she's charged with. --Habap 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

D.C. Code § 10-503.16 "Unlawful conduct" subd's (b)(7) provide:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully
and knowingly... (7) To parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of
the Capitol Buildings.

D.C. Code § 10-503.1 "Prosecution and punishment of offenses" subd. (b) provides:

(b) Any violation of ... § 10-503.16(b) ... and any attempt to commit
any such violation, shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both.

Subpart 10-503.16(b)(7) has repeatedly been held unconstitutional by the D.C. courts [1][2], but because of the way the D.C. government is structured, it remains on the books and people are arrested and plead to it all the time. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever been convicted of it at trial. I guess it allows the Capitol Police to arrest people without closing the Capitol, which they would otherwise have to do. Boggle! Apparently there is quite an industry of "pragmatic" attorneys in D.C. who make a living convincing protesters that they are getting a good deal by pleading to "time served" (usually 3-8 hours) and paying the attorney's fee. --James S. 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Capitol Police regulations implementing D.C. Code §10-503.16(b)(7) specifically allow t-shirts. Article XIX, Capitol Grounds Regulation § 158(a) defines prohibited "demonstration activity" as:

[P]arading, picketing, leafleting, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct or speechmaking that conveys a message supporting or opposing a point of view and has the intent, effect, or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons, or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. [3]

I wonder if you are allowed to have userboxes on your Capitol wiki userpage. --James S. 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are different regs for activities that occur inside the Capitol buildings as opposed to outside on the grounds. I also wonder at how Sheehan was approached (sounds like the officer was immediately confrontational) and how she reacted (her blog doesn't indicate any reaction other than surprise) and how Mrs Young was approached and reacted (sounds like all parties were cordial in that one). --Habap 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statute says "...does not merely include wearing Tee shirts," etc., but that does not mean exactly what you might think. The thing hinges on the word "merely". Some random person might have been able to get away with it, but it could be interpreted that since Sheehan was a well known anti-war protestor, and her wearing the shirt may have had a strong "effect, or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers", to the point of disruption, she was in violation of the statute. Who knows? People have interpreted statutes much broader than my possible interpretation. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, LV, that's the Capitol Police regulations about the Tee shirts, not the statute itself. Here's a link to a similar case, where those regs appear on page 2(pdf). To H., below, I don't know about "repeatedly", but that's one case where a similar arrest was held unconstitutional. Derex 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you are correct... wow I realy should have known better too. Well, anyway, that's at least a reason why the CP may have removed her. As to the statute, well, I guess that's a different story. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I hear a good argument for keeping the phrase "repeatedly held unconstitutional" I will be editing that sentence as I did not find a reference to anything being "repeatedly held unconstitutional" in the findlaw article. Otherwise it is merely an opinion offered by a Wikipedia editor. Homoneutralis 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning to respond to the three court cases cited above? I'm not sure that a findlaw article is the only acceptable reference for wikipedia. Derex 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the D.C. Stat §10-503.16 has been ruled constitutional in Armfield v. US, Smith-Carolina v. US, and Berg v. US upheld specifically the demonstration clause. There is a "tourist standard" that means speech (demonstrating, etc.) is protected as long as it does not cause a disruption more than a regular tourist would. Sheehan, intrinsically being more than a regular tourist, wearing an anti-war t-shirt to this, is likely to cause more disruption than a regular tourist. See Hasty v. U.S. for more details on the tourist standard. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

She may in fact be "intrinsically more" than a typical tourist, but the arresting officer had not a clue who she was when he arrested her. So, that don't fly. Nor, is there any evidence that she created any disruption whatsoever. You can't arrest someone because they might cause a disruption. You might ask them to leave, but that's apparently not what happened. Derex 21:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum... the Wheelock case above specifically states the constitutionality was not challenged. Run a search for "(b)(7)" and you will see the reference to the old-numbered section in question. And the Lederman case doesn't rule that either... where did you get your information??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lederman's district judged ruled it unconstitutional twice [4]. I'm happy to remove the reference to uconstitutionality. --James S. 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole section has no citation. I have not read any source which quotes which DC law she was being being arrested for. Also I see no reference to Officer Michael Weight other than a blog. Unless good citations follow each sentence, they should be removed. Homoneutralis 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You can verify that "unlawful conduct" refers to D.C. Stat §10-503.16(b) with a web search and reading the cases linked above. I have confirmed that Weight was the arresting officer with a call to the Capitol Police, but he hasn't returned my call. His dispatcher said he got a lot of messages today. --James S. 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is admirable that you called to get information, but there needs to be a citation from a valid source with link. Without a link to a factual source, it should not be accepted as a fact according to encyclopedic standards. Homoneutralis 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Sheehan is a primary source, but by law she must have been given the arresting officer's name and badge number on her booking sheet upon processing, and the police must see that she has her copy upon release. Those things are not always legible, but she has zero incentive to lie about the arresting officer's name, and plenty of incentive not to. So unless there is a dispute about that, I think it should stay. A secondary source doesn't need to be a document, but I would prefer that it was, too. The Capitol Police are at (202) 224-0908 --James S. 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Was a cover-up ordered?

Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says Sheehan, "was asked to cover it up. She did not." Sheehan says she was given no such opportunity and was arrested as soon as she took off her jacket. Beverly Young says she was not given the opportunity to cover up, either. I'll remove references to both possibilities for both women. --James S. 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to add that to the article for five minutes, but keep getting edit conflicts. At any rate, H added as "fact" that Sheehan was warned but didn't respond. You can't do that; it's not fact, it's a claim which she contests. Eventually, we'll know given the several hundred witnesses. But, frankly, I have to go with the police on this one; I simply can't believe that anyone in the government would lie. (joke) Derex 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another editor devoted to NPOV I see. Homoneutralis 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Homoneutralis, are you complimenting me for my recent edits, or are you being sarcastic? I can't tell, given the context of your "vandal" edit summaries. Derex 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You should do a historical check to see who provided a large chunk of this article months before you discovered it. Don't assume you are talking to new arrivals. The fact that you think the police would lie is all the proof I need of your attitude towards NPOV. Have a great day. Homoneutralis 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I don't assume that I'm talking to new arrivals. I do know that I talking to someone who repeatedly just called another editor a vandal and just accused me of violating NPOV. In fact, I am the one who cleaned up your error of stating as "fact" that she was warned. It's not a "fact" for our purposes, it's a disputed contention, as shown by your own link. So, you can preach on all you want about NPOV, but I'm not the one who violated it. As for a joke on the talk page, give me a break. People in the government lie all the time; for god's sake don't make me inundate you with examples. The _point_ of my dry humor was that you can't just put something in here as fact because a police spokesman said it; not when it is explicitly contested. You might want to quit baselessly accusing your fellow editors of NPOV violations and vandalism, and pull that stick out of your ass while your at it. (For those of you in the media, that last remark was a joke). Also, I don't give a rat's ass about who contributed what to this article, no one here owns it (WP:OWN). You have a great day too! Derex 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Ann Coulter reference. But anywho... Please calm down, all of us. We need to approach this like grown, intelligent people. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Between the Capitol police, and Sheehan, only Sheehan has a history of false statements as is illustrated in this very article. I suppose I didn't put enough weight in her assertions as she has lied before. Homoneutralis 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope we don't waste any money giving her a trial on this charge. You're absolutely right. There's no doubt at all here that she willfully disobeyed a police order. I also appreciate your thorough review of the veracity of Capitol Police statements. I am comforted that they are so much more reluctant to lie than the elected denizens of that building. Thanks again, and best regards, Derex 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When the police were asked whether Young was given the opportunity to cover up, they said the case was still under investigation and declined further comment. I thought NPOV in this case was best served by omitting reference to the disputed statements, but now I see that both points of view should be included. --James S. 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that for now, until we get more details surrounding her removal from the gallery. If it turns out she was just yanked out without any explanation given, then the article should reflect that. Homoneutralis 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up. Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day. However, State of the Union guests don't receive any guidelines, according to Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Kerri Hanley. "You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire," she said. (Taken from http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGKS480.html) Ciperl 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I can see how it would be completely legit to ask her to leave ... Congress can set whatever dress code they choose. Arrest is another matter entirely, which is why it's important whether she refused a lawful order. Though I guess it's moot now that the charges are dropped, unless she sues (as she indicated she might).

As an aside, that's a good one: the SOTU is "dignified". I've seldom seen a more embarassing spectacle than a bunch of old white men wetting themselves to see who can cheer loudest for the king. Derex 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like the good major told us, "you salute the rank, not the man". Whether one agrees with whichever guy from left or right has to say, it is traditional to act as though he is respected. --Habap 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

who said anything about the man? it's not respect, it's sycophancy whether it's clinton or bush or anyone else; all equally ridiculous looking. off-topic, my fault, just wanted to clear it up you took it the wrong way. Derex 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil Disobedience

Since it appears that Sheehan intends to employ civil disobedience as part of her campaign (as have many other well known peace activists), I think we should start a section that compiles her current arrest record. To wit: date, location, event, arresting authority, citation, resolution. Rklawton 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, she has only been arrested twice, and only the first was clearly intentional. (She claims that if she had been given an opportunity to cover her shirt, which the police say she was, that she would have taken it.) If it happens a few more times then a wikitable sidebar might be helpful, but I'm not sure about a seperate section for arrests. --James S. 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I had the impression from early reports that she had been asked to cover the offending shirt and that she had refused. If there are mixed reports, then let's wait and see how this sorts itself out. If it turns out she refused (or performs some other civil-disobedient act), then let's add the side-bar.Rklawton 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

She has explicitly stated she was not trying to engage in any sort of civil disobedience. The whole point of civil disobedience is that you're doing it loud and proud. So, regardless of whether she ignored an order, this wouldn't really fit that category. The police chief is back-pedaling about as hard as he can, so I'm real suspicious of a claim that she refused an order ... that would have been a reasonable basis for arrest. However, note that she was not charged with refusing a lawful order. And the police chief has now explicitly acknowledged that she broke no law, or even rule. So, I just don't see how the label would fit here. Derex 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What if it was her intention to get arrested and then lie about the process in order to make the authorities look like jack-booted thugs? That would fit the M.O. of an anti-authority campaign. Impartial witness statements would help resolve the matter. Since the feds aren't pressing charges, we might not get those unless Sheehan sues. Let's put my suggestion on hold for a few months and see how things shake out.Rklawton 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're planning to get arrested, it might be a good idea to actually break a law. Usually that helps with the getting arrested thing, but apparently it's not always necessary. Derex 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Public statements

I changed this section head to "controversial statements"; it was changed back. I did so because the list of statements was selected to be those which engendered controversy. Therefore, it seemed misleading to label it "public statements" which suggests a reasonable comprehensive compendium of her public statements (per the name), rather than those which have inflamed her critics. I have no objection to a section called "public statements", but the current text is not satisfactory under that name. If consensus is to keep the name, then we should make edits to make the text fit the name. For example, including quotes that her supporters have found particularly powerful emotionally, suggesting why she has engendered such widespread support. As I said, I'm good with it either way; I just want to see truth in labeling. 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she has many non-controversial statements, unless it has been in regard to the weather. --Habap 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this comment yesterday, during her arrest: "I told him that my son died there [Iraq]. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain." Is that controversial? To whom? But it does go a long way to help express why she's attracted a following. Some people see her as a left-wing whacko lashing out against the president, and that's essentially what the "public statements" section consists of. Others see her as a mother who lost her son, and is grieving, and is trying to make some meaning of it, and is trying to understand why we even had that war. The "public statements" section has none of that. In fact, the reason I assumed it was intended to be out controversy is that the very first line in there is about her "vitriol", and the first real paragraph starts with "Of greatest controversy". It's quite simply not a discussion of her public statements per se, it's about public statements that have inflamed her critics. Derex 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who have been following this article since its inception will know that the section was only recently retitled "Public statements"; for most of the article's history it was entitled "Rhetoric." I think either is fine, as her style of rhetoric (and her most notable public statements) are described well in the article, I think. Badagnani 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

and what makes those particular statements "notable"? obviously, they are the ones that her critics note. i'd like to solicit some more input on this; however, at the moment i think it definitely needs a sectNPOV tag so long as that particular selective assortment of public statements is listed under that heading. it's simply misleading to assert that those are the most notable ... not one of them goes to why she has attracted an enormous base of sympathizers and supporters, which is the very essence of her notability. instead all of them go to why she inflames critics and opponents. it's simply selective; which is fine; so long as the section is properly labeled to indicate that it is selective. Derex 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A clarification. Really, most of the quotations ought to go in wikiquote under our policies. A section of this nature should briefly describe something about her statements, with a few pertinent examples. But, I personally don't care much, so I won't push that point. Instead, I'll note that in Wikiquote you can find some "public statements" and "rhetoric" of the sort I note is presently missing. So, I see three resolutions (a) re-label the section to accurately represent the intention (b) re-work the text to accurately represent the label by e.g. including much of the current contents of wikiquote (c) move much of the quotations to wikiquote, and present a brief neutral description of her public statements with a couple examples from both sides of the spectrum. Derex 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support both (a) and (c), re-label and reduce. --Habap 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, works for me, anyone else? Derex 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, Derex, I found "I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go?" to be controversial. I suspect that she intended to provoke a controversy about whether her rights had been violated by making that statement. --Habap 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems likely that particular controversy will be settled in court, as her latest comments indicate she plans to sue; and it sounds like the police chief thinks she's got a pretty good case. Derex 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Is this chronology really necessary? We might as well have an hour by hour run down of the campaign...It seems like you could sum it up in fewer words. This article is really freakin' huge. Just my 2 cents. WikiSailor 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is valuable as no similar chronology exists anywhere; this documentation was built brick by brick as the events occurred, all backed up by news articles that would be otherwise scattered. It's a reference for the future which will exist to document these events when the original articles cease to be available. Badagnani 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have agreed with your sentiment, WikiSailor. I have attempted to reduce the size by removing entries which seem unneccessary, but as you can see above and in the archives of this talk page, Badagnani has refused to allow many changes. I was able to remove Bring Them Home Now Tour events at which Sheehan was not present from this article after I created that article, but little else is not considered "vital". --Habap 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll look into creating a Camp Casey article, to which we could move the specific chronology, while changing this article to paragraphs.... --Habap 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we do have one! Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas!!! Someone else already copied the chronology. --Habap 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied all entries for the demonstration weeks over to that article and am now working on revising that part of the chronology to a few paragraphs. My work will be at User:Habap/Chronology until I get it into a workable state, at which time, I will request a review before replacing that part of the chronology. --Habap 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask and thou shall recieve. I cleaned up the timelines by linking them to the pages where they make more sense. I also cleaned up some other parts that belong in an anti-war movement page rather than this one. I don't think ANYTHING that is against the war belongs in here...lest we have an behemoth on our hands.Squiggyfm 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush's Vacation Days...

...have no place in this article. Is it about Cindy Sheehan or not? The vacation days mention add nothing to the timeline, nothing to understanding Cindy, nothing to the story at all. Why keep reinserting it? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does not significantly contribute to the article, and is a cheap POV shot at Bush. This article is long, and this is an easily excised bit, in my opinion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It provides context in that Sheehan selected the long vacation to stage her protest, providing embarrassment to Bush; the U.S. public likely would not have noticed he was on vacation for so long had Sheehan not drawn attention to it. Badagnani 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The one spot where I find mention of Bush vacationing useful is in discussing when Sheehan started her protest, since she started it to coincide with it. I think that Sheehan was attempting to contrast her efforts (protesting as "work") against Bush's "vacationing while our boys die" (who fiddled while Rome burned?) I agree it's a cheap shot and I don't think that it belongs in the chronology. On the other hand, many editors feel it belongs. When I finish revising the chronology in paragraph form, though, it will be there. --Habap 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be? It doesn't add anything at all. It provides no context to his "being on vacation for so long," either, which is an easily disputable position on its own (since he does actually do Presidential work while at the ranch). I'd hope you'd keep it out of the "paragraph form" too, keeping the article on topic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The White House referred to his time there as vacation. Being the President is a 24/7/365 job, even if you are officially on vacation. If you read it in the paragraph form, it actually makes some sense there, since the context is explained. --Habap 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The White House refers to a lot of things bizarrely. I read the paragraph form, I still don't think it makes much sense in that context, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This does not belong. It might be one thing if that particular vacation were the longest ever. However, the fact that he's vacationed a bunch in the past has nothing to do with Sheehan. It reads like a cheap shot here; though it's quite a fair criticism to be included in the Bush article. Derex 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Badagnani has inserted it a few times now, without explaining in the article why it is significant. I don't really feel strongly about the inclusion or removal, just want things explained in a way to make it not look like a cheap shot at Ol' Georgie. And to insert it while there is quite some disagreement is not very kosher. But whatever happens, do not report Badagnani for 3RR. Let's discuss... it's hard to do while a party is blocked. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I think it merits inclusion because one of Cindy's points was that Bush was relaxing on vacation while hundreds of Americans were dying overseas in a war she thought had no meaning. He vacationed for a month doing nothing (well, clearing brush, whatever) when he could've just met with her for a bit. That was the point Cindy had made and it seems relevant to this article. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But that point was not made in the article. It was just randomly stuck in there. It needs explanation in the article itself. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the general point is valid, that she went while he was on a long vacation as a point of emphasis. However, that doesn't really have a lot to do with how much vacation he's taken overall. If she made some comment about the overall vacation length, it's one thing. Or, if media explicitly juxtaposed her protest with that. A month-long vacation is by itself relevant, the total record is not unless someone notable made the comparison. We don't just get to decide that breaking the vacation record is an important contrast; the contrast must have been made by the media or Sheehan. Derex 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would look at the record of what the President was doing during that stated "vacation" I believe you will find that he was traveling to different cities most days, not lounging in Crawford. I remember thinking at the time, seeing him on TV every night giving a speech somewhere differnt, "how can the press call that a vacation?" So the inclusion of the reference is, I believe, misleading as well as irrelevant. --StanZegel (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to back that up? Derex 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel is correct; after a few weeks, Bush's poll ratings and support for the war began to drop and, if I remember correctly, a day after he set the record for most vacation days, he set out on a trip to defend the war at various places in the West, and I think also appeared at some kind of Boy Scout function in L.A. But I don't think it's accurate that he was traveling around the country extensively before this. It seemed to me at the time that the Sheehan roadside vigil had something to do with these travels, which were mostly to bolster support for the war effort. Badagnani 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like an encyclopedia

This article sucks, and I mean that in the academic sense.

Attempts to be non-biased are riddled with bias, and an agenda is clearly present in practically every sentence. I would suggest scrapping the entire thing, and re-writing it in the interest of people reading it instead of people writing it.

I mean, think about it, if you had never heard of Sheehan, and you came to this article, is that what you'd want to read? Even early on in the article, it reads more like an investigation of Sheehan instead of an informational peace.

I would suggest removing all specific criticisms/defenses, because it's extremely difficult (read: pretty much impossible) to present a criticism without elevating its significance. For example, if I put in John Kerry's article, "Some critics, including KXAS correspondent John Doe, say he's a douche bag, but he has vehemently denied this claim," then it's still a biased sentence even though it appears to be factual.

Perhaps it's a little harsh to remove every single element of criticism, but I mean, just take a look at this:

On the August 15, 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."[214].

Limbaugh did not explain what about Sheehan's story he believed to be false

Okay, see the part where "Limbaugh did not explain what about Sheehan's story he believed to be false"--that, to me, means it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

The part about Sheehan's sister-in-law lacks relevance. A lot of it lacks relevance. The criticism part is what makes it less encylopedic.

Like, look at this for example: Criticism of comments

Sheehan has come under criticism for a number of comments, one such comment she wrote...

And then it only discusses that one comment. Does that deserve its own heading called "Criticism of comments," when it's really only one criticism?

And why does every person who's ever written a blog on Sheehan show up in the external links?

This just seems like a thorough investigation instead of an interesting article. Make your own personal website if you want to present a canonical list of every time Sheehan has farted.

There is clearly a lot to say about Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean everything ever said about her needs to be listed here. --Nicholas Mann 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. But the criticisms are notable in that they were widely promulgated and believed, forming the supposed "other side of the story." There were originall many other criticisms from less notable figures but eventually the Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and one or two others were kept because they are such influential figures among their listeners/viewers. This provides "balance" in the article. It's correct to state that the Wikipedia articles many other historical figures don't necessarily contain an "other side" or significant criticisms, but that's the way this one evolved, because at least at this point Sheehan remains controversial--if not for her message, for her persistence and uncompromising (abrasive?) manner. Badagnani 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is at least as long as the one for George Washington I think about 2/3 of it ought to go. Think about how this will read in a hundred years. Who will really care that :

• August 27, 2005: Conflicting estimates of between 1000 to 4000 Pro-Bush supporters rally in Crawford as part of the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" caravan.[5][6]

Just an example of how petty this article really is. I'll bet one could summarize everything important about her into two screens worth. At the very least, this should be split up into a dozen or so articles. Just some perspective from --71.141.136.236 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

i agree with some of this. in addition to a rambling criticism section, the first sections of the article have a very argumentative tone, as if they were the product of some sort of tit for tat, and it probably was. not being critical of anyone. just saying that, as a newcomer to this article myself, i can see where nick's coming from. see also the "public statements" section above.

however, i don't think the "chronology" should be limited as 71.* suggests. the important thing is to make sure the first couple screens contain an essentially complete encyclopedia article. then the chronology is sort of like an appendix. obviously, we shouldn't make a reader wade through that to get the basic story, but that doesn't mean it needs to go away. Derex 04:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with what's been said here. The thing I'm worried about is putting in some good time cleaning up this article and then some morons come along and revert me because I'm being "POV" for not including every little criticism. I want some pledges of backup before I go into this. --Cyde Weys 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got your back, bro! --71.141.136.236 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how comforting that is coming from an anon :-O Cyde Weys 05:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

well, i'll back you up on the principle. can't say for sure about the specifics, as i have no experience with you. Derex 05:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Derex, I don't think the chronology needs to be junked outright, but even The French Revolution has Timeline of the French Revolution --71.141.136.236 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, either way. i don't care so long as the extended chronology comes after the basic article, whether at the page bottom or as a subarticle. Derex 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The chronology always was at the end until Nrcprm2026 moved it up a couple of days ago, asserting that the reactions to Sheehan must come after the facts of her activities themselves. Badagnani 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do away with most of the various punditry and move the timeline into a separate article. This will cut down the main article to a much more manageable, readable, and useful size. I know this is going to piss off some of the people who want everything and the kitchen sink in the article, though. Hell, right now I can't even delete irrelevant information about other dead soldiers in Iraq without getting reverted. --Cyde Weys 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)--Habap 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick first stab at re-organizing. I grabbed the "chronology" sections on Casey and her initial activism and moved them to the top. Then, I moved the chronology to the end. Much more needs to be done. Derex 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The demonstration weeks chronology all exists in the Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas article. I have created a new version to replace the listing with a paragraphed description of it at User:Habap/Chronology. All I need to do is finish putting the citations in place (and verifying that I've placed the existing ones correctly). Some of it an be dumped, since it already exists in other parts of the article (and in the Camp Casey article). Please go have a look and edit and make comments. I would love to be able to replace that part of the chronology today. --Habap 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)