Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Other Children

Would it be worth mentioning her other children? I am thinking this is intentionally omitted as to push her as a "Mom" even though she abandonded her other children to go on her rightous crusade. Which is what has led them to drugs/amature pornogrophy/prostitution. I'd make an article on them, but other then being her children they haven't amounted to anything.

Ethnicity

Remove her from the Irish-American category, she is not an Irish-American, her former husband is, but not her.

Someone Keeps Deleting Sheehan Quotes

"They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there," she said. "We can't depend on the Democrats." [1]

I think this is an important quote because it shows Sheehan leaving the traditional coverage of the Democratic umbrella and joining a more bi-partisan anti-war campaign.

Randomly picking Sheehan's quotes from her earlier works ignores her most recent contributions.

Cindy Sheehan as a whore?

I have seen a few videos of Cindy Sheehan with friends. A few of them commented whilst watching the video by saying, "Jes, this Cindy Sheehan is such a whore" (sic.). It might be good to have some discussion about the perception of Cindy Sheehan as a whore.

I'm not sure what's the definition of a 'whore', however I do recall watching an TV piece about Sheehan where she was described by one of the interviewees as a 'whore'. If anyone could reference it a discussion should pursue. --82.35.58.145 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into this and found references to Sheehan as an 'Attention Whore'. She testifies about this in her blogs (see http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/CSheehan_GoodRiddance.html). I do think there should be some reference to it.

Morons! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.60.249 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No. While I do agree that she is an attention whore personally, and I think that blog you linked of hers is just revolting. No. --Pstanton (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed category

I removed the category "conspiracy theorists" as the phrase isn't mentioned in the article and there is no indication of what "conspiracy" she is theorizing about. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Radio show & books

Someone else made an attempt to revise the clearly agenda-driven language originally inserted regarding her radio show 'fighting for the little guy'; I figure it best to not state her supposed intent without at least citation, and in that case to cite it and enclose her stated intent as a quote. Also, is it relevant or pertinent as to why she didn't publish her books, and can the assertion that she chose to 'eschew the system' be documented? 08:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Protest at Obama`s holiday location

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a new section in this article called "Protest at Obama`s holiday location." It says, "Sheehan has recently announced plans to protest at Martha's Vineyard during President Obama`s forthcoming stay there, according to the Washington Examiner." However, it does not cite any specific article. I think that this is the article that is being referred to. That article quotes Sheehan as saying, "... we as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office." I think that quote, and citation, should be added to this article. I cannot do this myself, as I have been topic banned from political articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) News is starting to come in. I'll be adding some soon myself. Be good! CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Election running against Pelosi

The race was not close, it does not make sense to obfuscate that fact. The previous wording was misleading. Darthveda (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Frown. Nobody reads discussion pages. Darthveda (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the page says she came in second with 16% or something, can we get the percentage of votes garnered by Pelosi for comparison? --Pstanton (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup in progress

Since this article not as controversial as before it's probably safe to start cleaning out unsourced, duplicative, overly rambling, etc. material, as I am doing, a bit at a time. Then we'll see what can be merged from the other article, which I also cleaned up, removing all the non-WP:RS nonsense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Back at it again, including adding new material and removing a few WP:Undue details. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Real Voices

I was astonished that this article doesn't address what first got Sheehan into anti-war protests: her involvement with the (former) organization RealVoices.org . I would add this info but I'm not sure what sources are legitimate enough. Here's the ad, if anyone can find better sources for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bRkFWowlrU . I know for sure that the organization made political ads that showed on TV and radio before the 2004 election, that it was founded by Deane Little, that moveon.org showed (bought?) Sheehan's ad... however, this is all through my personal experience with the org, so i can't in good conscience add it based solely on that..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.108 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Sheehan herself is the only source of the story that she was nominated for the Nobel Prize. The citation from Al Jazeera is likely quoting from Wikipedia. Contemporary (2006) web sources only state that Sheehan claimed to have been nominated, not that it had been confirmed by anyone. The Nobel Committee apparently does not release lists of nominees for at least 50 years after the award is made, so we are unlikely to get confirmation any time soon. --Habap (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs a big edit

This article looks like it needs a major trim, starting with the "political activism" section. As I've done on several other articles, I'd like to take a hatchet to this to get it into encyclopedia shape, and then post it to my user space for approval. Any objections. -Jordgette (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You can write and submit for comment any draft in your user space you like. You may, though, want to be a little more specific as to what you think needs to be "hatcheted" and why. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just think there's an awful lot of detail from news stories 2006 on that aren't particularly relevant. This is typical of these kinds of public figures, where news details are successively added for years before someone steps back and asks, "What is of lasting importance and relevance here for an encyclopedia entry?" It shouldn't be a list of every time a person made it into the paper. For instance, I would remove that she took part in a specific peace march on April 29, 2006.

I see Ms. Sheehan as a major figure in the Bush-era antiwar movement, peaking with the Camp Casey protest, but her noteworthiness now relates more to that era than specific things she's done subsequently. Post-2005 I think we should cover her major appearances, arrests, and of course her congressional run, shortening the latter two-thirds of the article by at least half. Ms. Sheehan is somewhat similar to Joe the Plumber, another article I worked on heavily -- an ordinary person who entered the spotlight at a particular moment, and who subsequently stayed somewhat in the spotlight primarily because of that moment. While this is a judgment call, I feel the article should give proper weight according to the lasting relevance of details from her bio. -Jordgette (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my draft. Please note that there were many dead links, most of which I fixed; however, if I could find nothing whatsoever in terms of a reliable source, and it seemed appropriate, I cut the associated text. So I had to cut a little more than I intended to. But I don't think I cut anything terribly substantial. (I tried to explain each change in the edit summary.) Another idea is to break out all of the arrests under one section header, and treat them together. That would shorten the long "since August 2005" section considerably. Anyway, I'll leave the draft up for a week; feel free to edit it directly, assuming it isn't rejected altogether. Thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about this edit job I had done. Seeing no objections, I'm moving over my abridged version of this article now, with any relevant intermediate edits incorporated. -Jordgette [talk] 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues and political views

Recently, an editor restored poorly sourced and contentious content about a living person to this article.[2] I have twice removed this section because the content is not supported by reliable sources.[3][4] When we discuss the views of a BLP on Wikipedia, we do so with the utmost care, and make use of reliable secondary sources that have highlighted this content for us. What we do not do, is pick and choose primary sources that we then interpret depending on which way the wind is blowing. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure what your objection is. Do you find the sources short of WP:RS or do you think the material as presented is not reflective of those sources? I've looked over the material and I'm not sure I really see the problem. Could you be more specific with your objection(s) and offer an example or two, please? TomPointTwo (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very easy. The sources do not support the material nor is their use appropriate to a BLP. If you want to discuss the "political views" of any person, then you must first cite reliable secondary sources about the person and their views. You cannot interpret their views or highlight what you think is significant from primary sources. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So you think it's a WP:SYN issue? TomPointTwo (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the initial editor in this thread is overly zealous in claiming it's "synthesis" to read the text on a poster. I do not understand the editor's objection to the material at all, particularly the assertion that a direct quotation was an abuse of primary sources. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I respect what you "feel", but we're discussing the political views of a biographical subject which need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. I have now removed this material for the third time.[5] Please do not continue adding disputed, challenged material that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. If you feel that the content is supported, then please use this talk page discussion to demonstrate how the content matches the secondary sources. I have previously pointed you to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons on your talk page, and you have been on Wikipedia since December 2004, so one would expect, at the very least, that you understand how things work by now. In your edit summary you have said that you "do not agree at all with the deletion", and that's fine, but the burden of proof is on the person adding content to BLP's. Please show me how the sources support the content. I have reviewed the sources and the content, and I conclude that they do not. If you believe they do, please show me here. If you need to find additional sources, please also do that. As it stands, the section you keep trying to add back into this BLP is totally unacceptable and violates V, NOR, and RS. You now need to show how this material is acceptable for Wikipedia. Please do so. I have placed the content below this comment for you to review and discuss. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

So, again, is your objection to the material that you find it to be a synthesis of primary sources or that the assertions made don't match their corresponding sources? You need to make your specific objections clear if there is to be any progress made here, blanket statements such as " it violates V, NOR, and RS" don't cut it. Please, when removing sections in their entirety you need to be precise in your objections. If you can't do this then the material will be put back in. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. The burden of proof is on the editor adding material, not removing it. You, or anyone else adding it, needs to show how it is supported. I've repeatedly said that it is not. You can review the section below, titled "Why this doesn't work" to see a few examples of some of the problems. There are more I have not yet touched upon. I do not have any "objection to the material", so your reading of this issue is also in error. I have an objection to the misuse of sources. Again, when we talk about the views of any BLP, we must use reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Political views

Sheehan is a socialist, having worked closely with the Socialist Alternative beginning in 2010, appearing at events hosted by the party and its international affiliate, the Socialist Party in the United States and Britain. Sheehan has articulated revolutionary socialist and democratic socialist positions and called for a united socialist campaign for the United States presidency in 2012. She has stated that Karl Marx "was one of the most brilliant thinkers and political/social philosophers in modern history."

Why this doesn't work

Let's take a closer look at the political views section provided up above:

Sheehan is a socialist

There is no reliable secondary sources in this section that supports this statement. The reference is a link to a poster advertising Sheehan as a speaker at an event. This is not an acceptable use of a source. Editors don't get to interpret that subject X is a Y based on a talk they gave at Z. When we are dealing with statements about a biographical subject, we need to pay very close attention to what reliable secondary sources say, not what editors interpret from posters.

having worked closely with the Socialist Alternative beginning in 2010, appearing at events hosted by the party and its international affiliate, the Socialist Party in the United States

Same problem as above. We rely on reliable secondary sources publishing statements not on Wikipedia editors interpreting the significance from a poster. If her work with these groups is important, reliable secondary sources will have covered it.

Sheehan has articulated revolutionary socialist and democratic socialist positions and called for a united socialist campaign for the United States presidency in 2012.

This is an interpretation of a primary source, namely an interview with Socialist Alternative. This is not a reliable secondary source. If these political views are significant, reliable secondary sources will have covered them.

She has stated that Karl Marx "was one of the most brilliant thinkers and political/social philosophers in modern history."

Same problem as above. Wikipedia editors don't get to determine what Sheehan's political views are or which ones are significant. Furthermore, this is a misinterpretation of a primary source,[6] that actually says "Recently, on MSNBC, we saw establishment critic (oops, only when a Republican is in office), Keith Olbermann call Karl Marx a “lousy thinker,” when even the most anti-Marxist in the world would have to concede that Marx was one of the most brilliant thinkers and political/social philosophers in modern history—anyway, that’s a little off the subject." This is the worst kind of Wikipedia editing.

Now, the easiest way to get this material back into the article, is to find reliable secondary sources that support it. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If a subject states "Marx was one of the most brilliant thinkers and political/social philosophers in modern history", it is trivial to understand that the subject believes that Marx was one of the most brilliant thinkers and political/social philosophers in modern history. --Killing Vector (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. On Wikipedia, when we discuss the political views of people, especially BLP's, we must first find reliable secondary sources about the subject, discussing their views. Editors do not get to pick and choose out of context quotes from primary sources like interviews and claim they are significant or important without at least one reliable secondary source highlighting that fact. Further, the subject did not state what you claim, as the full quote in context was reproduced above. The subject was writing in their blog about Keith Olbermann, and was commenting in that context, and was writing about what a rhetorical "anti-Marxist" would say about Marx. You used a primary source to misquote the subject, which is precisely why we rely on secondary sources. For the third time, please read and understand the policy on WP:BLP. The worst kind of editing imaginable on Wikipedia is when an editor cherry picks quotes. Please stop doing this. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel you are making a personal attack, rather than a criticism. I would ask you please to be civil in this discussion. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm directly criticizing the contributions, not the contributor, which is not a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Search for sources

These are not good sources, but as far as I can tell from a brief search, Sheehan was an independent until July 31, 2010,[7] when she became a registered voter in the state of California for the Peace and Freedom Party.[8] Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Independent Political Report may meet the criteria for a reliable secondary source,[9] so I've added it to support the primary (peaceandfreedom.org). Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Dear President Bush (2006)

I've restored the content removed here. I'm not sure what the editor was trying to say in the edit summary, but they are invited to make their case here. It is entirely appropriate to mention this book in Sheehan's biography, and her publisher is considered a primary source about the subject, which while not ideal, is acceptable for a biographical article. I will try and find better sources. Note, I am not the original editor who added this material, but unless there is a copyright violation, there is nothing wrong with the content so I've restored it. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I've added an explicit quote, which the original editor failed to do. Once I've found additional sources, I'll rewrite it entirely. For now, the quote is fine. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, a separate section should be created for her published works. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the book needs a secondary source to establish its notability, if it is to get more than about a sentence in the article. -Jordgette [talk] 02:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The book is automatically notable as it was 1) published by a notable publisher (City Lights), and 2) is mentioned in a biographical article about the subject. That there are other secondary sources that mention it is easily demonstrated. I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for here. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Excerpt published in Sheehan, Cindy. (May/Jun2006). "Another World is Possible". Tikkun. 21 (3), 19-20. ISSN 08879982
• BookExpo sale featuring the book mentioned in "PW's Guide to BEA Exhibitors". Publishers Weekly. 253 (16), 52-157. April 17, 2006.
• Book review in Shochet, Fred. (Sep/Oct2006). "Preaching to the Choir". American Book Review. 27 (6), 20. ISSN 01499408
• Mentioned in her entry for Tucker, Spencer C. (2010). "Sheehan, Cindy Lee Miller". The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1851099476. 1114.

I removed the advertisement added by the publisher to promote the publishing house, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:NOTADVERT... Sorry my edit summary wasn't clear. As I noted in my edit summary, I do think that the book should be mentioned, just not as an advertisement for the publisher. I've reduced both publications to just the minimal information. When better sources are found, they might be expanded if the sources support giving further weight to those topics.

It looks like Dear President Bush was originally published as a pamphlet in 2005, so I've used that date and ISBN. "The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars" gives a publication date of 2006 for Peace Mom. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we use the publishing date from the time of City Lights, not before, and better sources have been provided, right above your comment. I'm getting the sense Ronz, that you aren't reading the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Best not to make absurd assumptions that contradict the readily available facts.

I don't see any problem with using the book ISBN and publishing date versus those of the pamphlet. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comments, the diffs of your edits, and the timestamps all show that you did not read or respond to the discussion in progress. There is no "absurd assumption" or anything contradictory. You simply choose, over and over and over again, to ignore discussions and to act unilaterally. When this is pointed out to you on your talk page, you delete it. When it is pointed out on the article talk page, you ignore it. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Done here? --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Sheehan's completely false account of the handling of her son's remains ever included?

This was a pretty big story when it broke. Sheehan wrote a completely false account of how her son's remains were returned to her -- the account involved a cardboard box, a forklift, and the smearing of a mortuary -- and it was completely debunked by those she targeted in it. JayHubie (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant it is. If there had been a libel lawsuit (and maybe there ought to have been), perhaps, but the conflict seems to have been transitory and not of lasting impact. Not sure what it would add except to make her look bad. -Jordgette [talk] 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to include anything that would reflect too poorly on St. Cindy Sheehan. Why do you think there is no mention of her blatantly anti-semitic ramblings about her son dying for Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.148 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheehans support of America's enemies

With her support of Hugo Chavez and Palestinian terrorism if we document it can this be added.Solarsheen (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't quite characterize it that way, but something about her visit there is needed since it got a lot of media. But tired now and need to do other things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A mention of her well-documented anti-semitic rantings definitely needs to be added to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.148 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If you're here to smear Cindy Sheehan or anyone else, you're in the wrong part of the internet. -Jordgette [talk] 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan here

On February 13, User:THF proposed merging Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan into this article, but didn't create a section here to discuss it. So, please comment on this merger below. For my part, I support it - we don't need 'support and criticism of...' articles for most people, and in this case it seems more like an attack page than a justified article. It may have been useful to have such an article when Sheehan was being widely reported in the news back in 2006, but it's not now. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

support, and reduce coverage of all those opinion on her. Maybe a summary appreciation will do. The opinion of everybody and their dog about CS are surely not encyclopaedic Jasy jatere (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I just cleaned out the worst BLP violations and most dubious unsourced allegations which took more than an hour! A lot of it was politically motivated recentism which will never be missed. What's left may be redundant in a few places or stuff that can just be chopped out as irrelevant. However, I don't necessarily want to to the work. Any other takers?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Against merge proposal

The article's form is fine as it is. One suspects the merge proposal is yet another attempt by some mentally unstable and intellectually challenged yahoo detractor to attack her. The person who suggests this has no credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.40.240 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Against name calling

Yeah your name calling and accusing someone whom you DON'T KNOW of being mentally unstable and int challenged really does a lot to support your position. I thought posters had to be over 12 years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.204.23 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)