Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

This Article Is Rather Long

Once again a certain few on the left are using a public forum to push a bias political agenda instead of just presenting facts and relevance. As the person below mentions, for this insignificant woman to have a more extensive bio that some of the greatest people, and infamous, people to have lived is appalling. Please put this article in perspective and put all the political stuff in the new anti war section or whatever it is called.

The article is long. Even with section headings and the magic of hypertext, it is hard to navigate and rather intimidating in general. If all this material is important, perhaps it could be split into different articles ("Cindy Sheehan", "Camp Casey", "Cindy Sheehan's 2005 Bus Tour", etc.) or something. Of course this would be a large and difficult project, and I have no idea how to go about it.

Anyway, just to make myself a nuisance, I will point out that the Cindy Sheehan bio is longer in my browser than any of the biographies of: Johann Sebastian Bach, John Lennon, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Adolf Hitler, George Washington, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Jesus. To be fair, her biography is slightly shorter than the biography of Mahatma Gandhi and is considerably shorter than that of George W. Bush. -- 67.161.46.135 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As she has proven to be rather irrelevant, I suggest we seriously prune this article, taking out at least 50% of it.--Bedford 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long at all. I find it a well crafted article. Could it be improved and tightend up? Sure it could, but it's not at all too long. Calicocat 22:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too long. While it may be well crafted and often well sourced, craft and sourcing alone shouldn't be the only arbiter of an article's overall value. Readability matters, and so does keeping an article from growing without bounds. A careful pruning and cropping can be very valuable to elevating an article to "Great" status. For starters, here's some editing questions:

In the "Chronology", do we really need bullet lists for each week of her protests? Could they not be summarized in paragraph form?

Do we really need all the links to blogs and other web commentaries? Could not a chosen few represent the overall sentiments?

Thanks. --NightMonkey 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I likewise agree that this article is horribly overworked, being closer to a definitive work than an encyclopedic one. Really, it could be cut to about five paragraphs and cover all important points with ease. Having such a long article for such a person is in itself a POV bias... but the problem is that most changes to correct their error will probably get reverted by some of the long term editors. People don't like seeing their work discarded, even more so when it is fairly well constructed. Still further when they place a greater importance on the subject than the subject merits. If someone can reduce this, that would be wonderful, but it still may be too soon for some people to see such changes objectively. Thought 18:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess when the Iraq War is over we'll see some reduction, but right now, there are too many people "shaving a shank" to defend their own positions, and the article gets sandbagged with lots of ephemeris. This is common among many articles on subjects covering current American political affairs, and consensus is working against readability in these articles. It also makes editing difficult, as it can be hard to ensure that one isn't duplicating information, or where pruning to replace out-of-date information should occour. Editors who are interested in pruning, redacting and shaping such articles are soon driven off by carpet-bombing that inevitably erupts between various camps that overshadow stylistic concerns. Since there is no real timely enforcement of policies, and the process of arbitration is daunting, slow, and very time and energy consuming, I think many good editors just say "why bother?" and move on to less contreversial articles. I don't get paid enough here to want to waste time fighting ;). --NightMonkey 02:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur that it should be pruned, but hesitate to undertake the task. For example, I think the number of sections in the chronology should be greatly reduced.

Despite my hesitation, I am going to combine the two most recent sections (Camp Casey II and Trip to London) into the renewed activism section because they aren't comparably sized (to the prior sections) and really represent more of the same.

I hope I don't get burned for this....--Habap 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific trimmings

1. I would suggest that we remove the two announcements from the 16th of August in the timeline, as the announcement dates themselves are not particularly relevant or meaningful. Both events are listed on the dates on which they occur already, so this is repetitive. (We'd move the links to the announcements to the actual event dates.) Here are the announcements:

16 August 2005: MoveOn.org announces a nationwide "Vigil for Cindy Sheehan" to take place Wednesday, August 17.

16 August 2005: Move America Forward announces a "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" caravan ending in Crawford, on August 27.

2. I would suggest that we remove one of the two entries concerning the return of Casey's boots to Sheehan from the American Friends show.

22 August 2005: Casey Sheehan's boots are removed from the American Friends Service Committee's traveling exhibition "Eyes Wide Open: The Human Cost of War," in order to return them to Sheehan.

25 August 2005: Casey Sheehan's combat boots are returned to Sheehan by the American Friends Service Committee[151][152][153]

3. I would suggest that we remove the date of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, as the landfall date has nothing to do with Sheehan. Reference already occurs to Katrina in the 30 August entry about Bush ending his vaction and two entries on the 31st (Sheehan's speech and Bush's survey).

29 August 2005: Hurricane Katrina, a Category 4 storm, makes landfall in southeastern Louisiana.

4. I would suggest that we compile the list of who visited Camp Casey, and when, and place it separate from the chronology. Humbly submitted, --Habap 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Greater specificity is better in these cases. Please trim other aspects of article besides chronology. Badagnani 15:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the chronology is fair game for careful reduction. Specificity is admirable where it furthers a reader's understanding of the overall subject of an article, while redundancy, however, is not. These proposed trimmings seem well-reasoned and well-founded, and I hope there are more to come. --NightMonkey 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Above the rest of the article, the Chronology is the section most in need of trimming. Indeed, it seems to generate the largest number of complaints. Habap's suggestions are most reasonable and even rather conservative (in the non-political meaning of the word); my only suggestion would be to remove both mentions of Casey's boots and in their place placing mention of when they were originally donated (or the inclusion of why the return of these objects is significant). Unfortunately I have never been able to find out when that was, but perhaps others know or know how to find out. -- Thought 03:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Badagnani, what is better about specifically identifying on this page what day Katrina made landfall? What does it add to the article? How is greater specificity in which day the boots were removed and which day they were returned helpful? (When I edited that line, I even kept the date of the return in the line on the removal, so no information was removed, but that was reverted by you.) Why is the date on which they announced each of those rallies important? Why can't we list all of the visitors together rather than in the chronology? I'm sorry, but I am frustrated by your refusal to explain why these specific trimmings would hurt the article. --Habap 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by the edit summary for reverting the removal of the Katrina landfall date: restore context for future references in August and Sept. to Bush's and Sheehan's activities and statements vis-a-vis the Hurricane. I don't understand why it is necessary. If you intend it to say something about when Bush ended his vacation, this is the wrong article for it. I also don't see what it adds to the understanding of Sheehan's activities and speeches. Could you cite and explain the specific instances? --Habap 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the chronology, and you will see that in the wake of Katrina, there are several chronology entries which refer to this hurricane. Very simply put, the date the hurricane hit is significant in light of these subsequent entries. Without it, there exists a confusing lacuna. Badagnani 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I had to look lacuna up on dictionary.com. I learn something every day here. --Habap 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina landfall

Badagnani, you have stated that without the landfall date "there exists a confusing lacuna". There are four references in the chronology to Katrina, all of which contain wiki-links to the Katrina article if someone senses a lacuna. To wit:

30 August 2005: President Bush decides to end his five-week vacation early to focus on relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

This doesn't even belong in here because it's not about Sheehan, it's about Bush. I don't see why the landfall date is required to make this one understandable, unless the goal is to say "Bush responded slowly to Katrina", which belongs either in the Katrina article or in the Bush article or somewhere else. It is not a biographical point in Sheehan's life.

31 August 2005: Bush takes Air Force One to Washington, D.C., surveying the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina from the air en route.

Again, not about Sheehan. This item also doesn't require the landfall date to be understandable.

3 September 2005: The anti-war bus tour arrives in Minneapolis, Minnesota where protesters link the Iraq War with the inability to respond to Hurricane Katrina. "People are dying in Louisiana and New Orleans right now" because Bush, a "warmonger," is intent on "looting" oil in Iraq", said state Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis.

I don't know whether Sheehan was present at this rally, but I don't see how the landfall date is required for this to make sense either.

9 September 2005: Cindy Sheehan meets in San Francisco, California with senator Dianne Feinstein's staff to point out that the war in Iraq is taking away resources that could be better used in the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast.

I don't see how the landfall date is required for this to make sense. Users can follow any of the wiki-links above, or we could link "hurricane-ravaged" to something on Katrina if we think they really are suffering from a lacuna.

I thought that the whole point of having the wiki-links was so that you didn't have to explain everything in one article. I am truly disappointed that you are so quick to revert and so slow to answer questions here. The only time I have gotten any response is when I have made a change and awaited the edit summary in your revert. I posted here first to start a dialogue, which has been like pulling teeth.

I started my trimming here in the Chronology because it is, quite frankly, the most bloated part of the article. With the knee-jerk reversions to any changes and the extreme reluctance to discuss the issues, I have no confidence that editing the rest of the article will be any easier. I am especially daunted by your most recent edit summary Chron was good before and it's good now., which I take to mean No changes in the chronology will be accepted.

Please explain how each of the above chronology entries requires the landfall entry. --Habap 20:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article should be trimmed. The details of every single rally she goes to doesnt really need to be posted.

JJstroker 23:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Length

I realise some of you have worked hard on this article, but does it really need to be as long as it is? Why is the chronology section as long as it is? 29 December 2005: Sheehan goes to Burger King and orders a Whopper. Are we being a little too specific? I am not really sure what we would cut, I haven't studied this article in depth, but right now it is around 86 KB, just a hair over the recommended 32. Any suggestions? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See directly above. All specific suggestions for trimming the chronology have, thus far, been rejected and reverted by Badagnani. Perhaps the Bus Tour should be moved to another article? I don't know if that would be acceptable either. --Habap 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, LV... open your eyes before commenting. Okay, going to read the above thread. I'll try not to be as non-observant as before. Sorry bout that. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just posted a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war or someone to split out the bus tour chronology to a separate article. Hopefully, this might bring some more edits to this article, who may be able to develop a consensus on content, splitting and length. --Habap 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for presenting a balanced and neutral article on this controversial figure. Most of the anti-war pages are full of self-congratulatory statements about organizers, without a balanced criticism of the movement. I'm sure that many of you detest the criticism, but it helps keep Wikipedia a encyclopedia, and not a soapbox. Thank you all for your diligent efforts. Morton devonshire 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are editors here who may not agree with Sheehan as well as those who may not agree with her critics who are endeavoring to keep the article NPOV. Personally, I detest all the vandals nearly as much as the wingnuts on both ends of the political spectrum. In the new year, I'd like to extend my thanks to all the people helping edit this also. It's a tough job, but worth the effort. --Habap 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bring Them Home Now Tour

In hopes that we can reduce the size of the chronology, I have created a new article on the Bring Them Home Now Tour. That chronology doesn't list everything in the Sheehan chronology, as some activities Sheehan participated during that time did not involve the tour. I would like to suggest that we trim the bus tour chronology here, place a link to that article, and determine which events we don't have to cite in both articles. Hopefully, Badagnani will agree that this is an acceptable way to reduce the size of this article. --Habap 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support and criticism sections unbalanced?

I think the Support and Criticism sections are unbalanced. The Support section is small and contains only references to other parents of dead soldiers while the Criticism section has that and other stuff including a whole section on media pundits. Guess what? A large number of media pundits came out in support of Sheehan, too. I'm not suggesting that the Support section be increased in size, though; just that we cut down the Criticism section. There's just too much irrelevant information on this page, like this: Readers of Little Green Footballs voted her the winner of the 2005 Idiotarian of the Year Award or "Fiskie", so named for Robert Fisk [57]. I mean, really, who cares? That's not notable and it's not encyclopedic content. Literally hundreds of various blogs and pundits had their say on Cindy Sheehan, and out of all of them, somehow this nonsense "award" by a blog makes the cut?

In short, I am proposing that the article be refocused on the main topic of the article, Cindy Sheehan, and her actions, and the focus be moved farther away from all of the "outrage" or whatever she generated in the media and popular press. You're really going down POV road when you focus too much on the pundits' response to an issue. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems sensible. Many anti-war figures (even Martin Luther King in his last years) were trashed by pundits at the time but this is not dwelt upon in their Wikipedia articles. Badagnani 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Careful with the comparisons. Anyone who claimed that Martin Luther King was only an anti-war figure on the same level as Cindy Sheehan would probably be laughed out of the room. I know what you're trying to say, but using King as the point of comparison is not the best choice. --Habap 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the people against Cindy Sheehan now were the same people against MLK then. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, possibly the same type of people, but certainly new people have come along that criticise Sheehan, no? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be really fair, most of King's critics from back then are probably dead. Remember, it was 40 years ago. --Habap 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow what an incredibly offensive and generalized statement. You've outdone yourself this time Cyde. So because one is pro-military, they're anti-Dr. King? The 1960's Civil Rights Movement was one of the most important cultural events in the entire history of the US, and comparing Cindy Sheehan to Dr. King, or even worse, comparing her detractors (of which I'm proud to number myself) to the great Dr. King's detractors is just ludicrous. I don't see any assassins trying to kill Cindy Sheehan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) . -edit- oops, forgot to sign. Swatjester 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you think Cindy Sheehan is anti-military and that everyone who is libeling and slandering her in punditville is pro-military, then you have no understanding whatsoever of the basic issues at play here. Here's a hint: anti-war does not mean anti-military. --Cyde Weys 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, I do think she is anti-military. When she goes beyond attacking the Iraq war, which is reasonable criticism, to attacking the military presence in the New Orleans reconstruction, attacking Israel, etc.....she is using her grossly over-extended 15 minutes of fame to attack the military. There's a reason that even those of us in the military who are anti-war almost universally hate her. Swatjester 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That all aside, there is far more commentary, pro- and con-, than is necessary in this article. Wikipedia should not be the gathering spot of all things about Cindy Sheehan (or any other person for that matter), but should serve as a starting point for research. I think we're trying too hard to include too many things here. I have already weened some off into the Bus Tour article and if there are other things that belong in an encyclopedia that are making this article bulge, maybe we create other new articles to contain them.

I almost deleted that Little Green Footballs thing immediately. While the web page is somehow able to keep a Wikipedia page, I'm not sure that her "winning" the award is particularly notable. If it must stay, I think it should be moved somewhere else. --Habap 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)