Talk:Cindy Sheehan

• 1st Archive August 20, 2005
• 2nd Archive September 2, 2005
• 3nd Archive to October 26, 2005
• 4th Archive to January 18, 2006
• 5th Archive to February 2, 2006
• 6th Archive to February 3, 2006
• 7th Archive to March 27, 2006
• 8th Archive to late October 2006

==

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.

Personal Life

Yeah, about her personal life. Why is there ZERO mention of deleted per policy due to the fact she deleted per policy. Also, how she deleted per policy? And why she deleted per policy? I mean, why is there no section on her life prior to deleted per policy?

--Possibly to keep deleted per policy as a suffering mother in the wake of her son's death. Shame her son died, of course, but it would be nice if this article had more information about her life before she became an activist, rather than pretending that that's where her life began.

Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post, thanks. The supposed divorce referenced above is an urban legend. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp Badagnani 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The headstone is mentioned here: Casey Sheehan. Badagnani 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---I'm sorry, but shouldn't the bit about the headstone be included on this page, not the son's page? The son was not responsible for providing his own headstone, the woman that received the Death Gratuity was. You can find a fully researched article about it on snopes.com. That would at least attempt to add some neutrality to this article. 74.4.131.70 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention about her personal life? Sullynyflhi 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The above story about a divorce when Casey was a youngster is an Internet hoax. They divorced in 2006 or 2007. Her personal life is not particularly notable, unless you are a gossip columnist. --Habap 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think her personal life is the entire reason why she gained notoriety. I think when she deleted per policy is notable enough for inclusion in an article this long, especially since (if I remember right) it played into why she decided to stop being a part of the peace anti-war movement, at least in May '07. If it's not mentioned here simply because it would "tarnish her image", well there are plenty of people who deleted per policy. --User:anonymous surfer 79.72.94.237 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli

I recently put in a minor edit calling sheehan anti-Israeli activist it was deleted because the other editor claimed it was not important to the description of Sheehan. I disagree Sheehan shows her anti-Israeli and Anti-American attitudes at ANSWER rallies and other speeches and if she can be called the Peace Mom these other facts are equally valid.Tannim 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What someone did was to add, at the very top paragraph, "anti-Israel activist." It's simply incorrect; she is an anti-Iraq War activist. Her statement(s) about Israel as they relate to her opposition to the Iraq Ware are already discussed in the article. Badagnani 09:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, while she may be directly opposed to Israel and talk about it at rallies (I've seen videos of such), it is not what she is known for. As such, it doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. As Badagnani states, her position on Israel is already covered in the article. If don't feel it has enough emphasis, please discuss how it might be improved. Thanks! --Habap 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way to criticize Israel without being "anti-Israeli"? If that is so, then I would imagine close to 100% of Israelis are themselves "anti-Isreali". Ditto with the "anti-American" statement. As for her being called the "Peace Mom" I think it's really a nickname, though perhaps a bad one. Perhaps the different nomenclatures could be considered equivalent if they were all put in quotes as signifying what some people call her. In reality she is simply a woman who is opposed to aggressive warfare as outlined in all the international conventions the U.S. has signed and thus made the supreme law of the land. It does appear that the law is relatively meaningless these days. Macsenrut 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Peace Mom as it make her nobler than she is or put or Terrorist Sympathizer which a equal number of people regard her as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I don't find Peace Mom as an ennobling nickname, though her supporters see it as such. I think it lumps her in with another great peace proponent, Neville Chamberlain. --Habap 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And who is to make the judgment that she is a 'great peace proponent'? One could argue the opposite based on an alternate POV (i.e. she undermines national policy leading to extended conflict, etc), or one could also argue that there are those who have dubbed her with nicknames far less flattering then 'Peace Mom'. Her arbitrary pet names are irrelevant and serve as agenda propping. Let's keep it to the non-disputable Who, When, Where, What, Why, and How only.

BOTTOM LINE: Wikipedia is not a place for editorial or opinions, yours or mine. Stay neutral when you make content contributions or make arguments on the talk page. --Tolstoy143 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that being linked to Neville Chamberlain fits in nicely with your evaluation " she undermines national policy leading to extended conflict". Those who campaign for peace at any price are doomed to see aggression in response, as we all saw in Chamberlain's case.

She is widely known as the "Peace Mom" whether we agree with her or not. If any of the less-flattering nicknames get widely used, they should be listed also. --Habap 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A good portion of American (deleted per policy). Fox News Jan 6, 2006. I think her (deleted per policy) should have equal balance with her Anti Iraq activism.Skypad 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan was protesting GITMO but refused to condem Castro for his far worse prisons, another example of (deleted per policy). FoxNews channel Jan 11th 2006.Skypad 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't quote Fox "news". That makes you look like an idiot. Fox "news" is simply the propaganda arm of the Republican party. It is a fact that people who get their news from Fox are the most misinformed. They still tend to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, harboured Al Queda and had WMDs, all false.

That, my friend, is an opinion. You're certainly entitled to have an opinion, but this is not the place for it.Kf4mgz 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit of 2006 activism proposed for concensus

Under the section Chronology of activism > 2006 activism, I think a change is needed to the sentence that includes the phrase; "fantasies of suicide and revenge against President Bush" to better reflect her fantasy of time travel and intention of killing an infant George W. Bush. I believe this will better reflect her "fantasies" than a mere mention of revenge which really doesn't reflect the scope of her intentions. Durbinmj 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? Durbinmj 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave it as it is, Durbinmj. The paragraph about her book doesn't have much to do with "2006 activism" anyway. And I don't see that her "fantasies" belong in this article. Perhaps in that separate "Support and Criticism" article. Pgc512 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant sentence

removed:

 She is sometimes referred to by the media as the "Peace Mom".

because it does not contribute to the article and only few news sources refer to her as 'Peace Mom.' --Maniwar (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought of reverting this, but wonder, do they still refer to her that way or just as Cindy Sheehan? --Habap 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to revert. It holds no relevance being placed in the first section. It is already mentioned in the main body and again, not all media considered her to be this. --Maniwar (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I only thought about reverting. I didn't do it because I wondered if the media (not just Sheehan herself, esp in her book title) actually still used it. I don't think that her detractors in the media have settled on any one name and the sentence doesn't state "she is always referred to by all media outlets as the Peace Mom", so the argument about whether it is all is not relevant. In a quick Google search, I only found references from 2005. --Habap 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a quick way of identifying her - as in "oh yeah, she's that 'Peace Mom'". That is relevant enough to put it in the 1st paragraph, perhaps with a change of tense to " she was sometimes called " ... Pgc512 01:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag Redux

So, are the issues above resolved? I am still unsure as discussion simply seemed to stop on some issues while others are clearly resolved. If no one objects, I would like to remove the POV tag as it looks quite silly up there. (The neutrality of this POV_TAG is disputed.) --Habap 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We should archive this "talk" page as well, because it's huge. Badagnani 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As there is no sourcing on her being a anti Iraq war activist we should add the (deleted per policy).Tannim 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't everything she's done publicly since the Camp Casey protest been in an attempt to end the Iraq War? I'm afraid I don't understand where this question comes from because all the sources confirm it. What you're saying is comparable to saying that there isn't any proof that Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist. You can do better than this. Saying that she is (deleted per policy) seems POV to me; what is the proof for this? Badagnani 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing BOTH of the neutrality flags. Pgc512 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, you're simply being ridiculous now. You've reduced your own argument to absurdity by claiming there is no sourcing for her being a anti-Iraq War activist. Please don't be petulant. If you wish to make constructive contributions, they will be welcome, but stomping for your feet and demanding that we do things your way will get you nowhere. --Habap 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be considered sufficent sources? If i give 3 to this board would that be sufficent? I might point out that by your argument Habap, I should be able to list Hezbollah as a terrorist group because everything they do to Israel is terrorism, yet that ke being reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tannim (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is an vague, inflamatory way to demonize people. For example, attacking and invading a country that posed no threat to us, causing the deaths of 100,000's of people, could be considered "terrorism". But I am not going to try and add that to GWB's wiki article. Pgc512 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the controversy section needs to be developed with a one or two paragraph section rather than shooting readers off as pointed out, but I am leaning more towards removing the POV tags. I have gone back and re-read and see that it's not too bad an article and I see that Badagnani is not so quick to interpret things for the readers or revert other people's post which was one of the concerns. I leave it in your hands! --Maniwar (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pgc512, you are very very wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Terrorism is a legitimate term with fairly well-enough defined meaning. Check the wiki article since you are obviously confused. GWB can't be confused for a terrorist because he doesn't meet any of the qualifications for a terrorist. Terrorists, among other things, target civilians and act unlawfully. This obviously applies to groups such as Hezbollah, whereas by no stretch of the rational mind can it be applied to President Bush. If you tried, you'd be profoundly dishonest. Bush's Iraq policy does not target civilians, but war criminals. Civilians who have been killed in the Iraq war were never targeted by Bush's policy - the vast majority have been killed in suicide bombings, etc, by insurgents, who obviously WERE targeting civilians, qualifying them as terrorists. Don't contribute to wikipedia if you're unwilling to honestly confront facts.Jsrduck 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jsrduck, welcome to the discussion. Maybe you didn't know about this? Probably not, because it's not often covered in the media; this article is one of only a tiny handful about the subject. I think the half life of this material, whose dust is covering Iraq now, is 4.5 billion years, and will certainly be something that is affecting and will affect civilians essentially forever. This is the sort of thing Sheehan is concerned about and trying to stop. Badagnani 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Badagnani. What you linked me to was not especially relevent to the conversation. Nobody is debating that war doesn't have side-effects, generally bad ones. We were debating the definition of terrorism - and if you're trying to respond to the point I made, and I'm not entirely sure you are, then you're suggesting that our military is deliberately targeting civilians with radioactive bullets. I don't think even the article you sent me to is suggesting that. All wars affect civilians. I'm hard pressed to think of one that doesn't. And if you're looking for proof that the war is harming civilians, I'm surprised you'd pick such a lame example (notice the lack of any mention of civilians actually harmed in that article. The article was written to warn of the potential danger). At any rate, that civilians are hurt as a byproduct of the war isn't sufficient to label Bush a terrorist. In any war, we expect civilians to be hurt as a byproduct. The US military's policy is to reduce civilian casualties (hence the article even exists). In order to qualify as a terrorist, the aggressor must target civilians, something Bush clearly has not done.Jsrduck 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, discussion of the civilian costs of war and of whether Bush is a terrorist are not at all relevant to this discussion. Badagnani, please don't lead us off on a tangent. --Habap 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, you lost me there. What argument did I make? I do happen to think Hezbollah is terrorist group, and I would suppose that if you found a source, you could write "some consider Hezbollah a terrorist group". That discussion belongs on another page, though. --Habap 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that there is no sourcing when Sheehan is described as anti Iraq war activist it is accepted fact, and I think is just as much a fact that she (deleted per policy). I used the Hezbollah analogy because the P.C wikipedians block any attempt to an established fact.64.12.116.130 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"No sourcing" that she is an anti-war activist? The very first reference in this article is to a source titled "For Some, a Loss in Iraq Turns Into Antiwar Activism," (emphasis added), which describes Sheehan's anti-war activism. It is very clearly sourced. Eron 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Habap, you seem to have a balanced view of this whole thing, and are helping to keep this page from complete chaos. Keep up the good work, and best wishes to everyone. Pgc512 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Always nice to feel appreciated. --Habap 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Added weasel words tag due to the use of "It should be noted that...." "Some critics...." "it has been noted by observers...." "Rumors began spreading...." etc. See WP:AWW. Durbinmj 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If the content of these sentences is correct, then perhaps the wording could be changed. Badagnani 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored weasel tag because none of the usage I referred to above has been corrected. Durbinmj 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, wait a sec. "It should be noted that..." is gone, as such phrases always should be extirpated. "Some critics..." has two sources and a neutrality tag; "noted by observers..." has one footnote, and the "Rmors began spreading..." is unsourced and as such needs to be zapped. You could do the deweaseling yourself, given how well sourced the sentences are. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed. My revisions always get reverted....Durbinmj 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me remove this Revert Me note that was taped to your back.... --Habap 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sheehan myths?

Why do we have this, the section is only a sentence long, it seems pointless and looks like we're grasping for straws to make the article more interesting...

Pstanton 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I zapped it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i've always been told several things about Sheehan that I need clearing up on. One, she (deleted per policy). Two, President Bush already talked to her, before she organized this whole anit-war protest (President Bush talks to every family whose son/daughter was killed in Iraq/Afghanistan).71.62.99.81 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an affirmative on the second part of your question. I do not know the answer to the first. After the meeting, Sheehan said that she now knows that Bush is a caring sincere person (paraphrase). I heard the interview on the radio one day. I was driving (four hour trip) and heard the her after the meeting Bush had with several mothers. I'm sure you could Google it. --Maniwar (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about her (deleted per policy) is simply wrong. Sheehan was married to Casey's father until recently and never deserted the family. She raised her son. It was simply an internet myth with no basis in fact. --Habap 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This article is a mess. Something needs to be done to stop the vandalism and the warnings, etc.. Those of you with more time and wiki experience - any ideas? Pgc512 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems a protect tag has been placed. Jmlk17 11:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Feinstein Thing

If you go back to the article during that period of time, you'll see that it did include mention of the Feinstein thing. However, it isn't a particularly relevant point and doesn't belong in the article. --Habap 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

==> I think its relevant as it was really the beginning of Sheehan's turn away from the Democratic Party and her condemnation of the Democratic party's failure to get us out of Iraq grows every day.

"Sheehan has 'always been a Democrat'"

Why is this the opener to the section on Sheehan's war activism? It does not follow logically that a Democrat is necessarily a peace advocate or an opponent of war. Sheehan's anti-war activism is not typical of all Democrats or an inherent quality to the Democratic platform. If Sheehan is simply showing her true Democratic colors in protesting the war, as the placement of this quote implies, why did she oppose the re-election of Democrat Dianne Feinstein in 2006, in favor of a Green Party candidate?

I'm not saying that this statement doesn't belong in the article - it's relevant to her opposition to GWB - but I think it is all wrong as the opening sentence in this section. Venicemenace 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

^^^Sheehan herself states she has both denounced and renounced all ties to the Democratic party: [[1]]

Sheehan's Hypocrisy

I suggest we add a section giving examples of Cindy Sheehans hypocrisy.

1. When protesting GITMO on Thursday, Sheehans (deleted per policy) Fox News Nov 11

2. Sheehans had spoken at ANSWER rallies (deleted per policy) Associated Press

3. Sheehans has (deleted per policy). MichelleMalkin.com

4. She is silent on (deleted per policy). Vent

This is as relevent as her Anti Iraq liberation stand. Skypad 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply by: VeLiKi

First, it's spelled 'Hypocrisy'. Second, I'm sure you'll find an interesting article on her on somethingawful.com - she has been ridiculed on their front page. Link: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4405 Thing to note: the article was written by a person with strong anti-war stance. This article is interesting because she is being ridiculed by her fellow anti war brethren. Maybe it is safe to presume that she is NOT liked by each and every anti-war oriented person??

I think we should add the (deleted per policy) to the lead description she (deleted per policy).Reapor 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

General Cleanup and NPOV Questions

I just took a look at this page for the first time and frankly, I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that since there's an entire separate page for Criticism and Support, some of the later info in the "Sheehan's campaign against the Iraq war" could be removed to the other page. The NPOV question might be easier to deal with that way. The weasel words issue, though, seems tough to avoid. Also, the separation of the first section from the chronology section seems to be a bit unintuitive to me. Maybe creating a single, chronological progression which incorporates the "campaign against the war" section would help. Sorry to just criticize and not change anything, but I don't think I know enough about the topic or Wikipedia yet to be much help. Veritek83 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Underneath “Sheehan’s Campaign Against the War”, a sentence says, “Ironically, her son volunteered for service, and Sheehan used money from the government for her actions”

I'd like to point out that there's absolutely nothing ironic about her son joining the military, and the source provided does not say that she used "money from the government for her actions". Claiming that it's irony is inaccurate, POV, unencyclopedic, and arguably original research.

In the same section, a sentence reads, "In her anti-war speeches and writings, Sheehan is blunt and often vitriolic, a characteristic that has been noted by observers on both the left and right, and which Sheehan herself does not deny"

The source provided says people "sitting on the fence" have noted this, not observers on "both the left and right"—the latter is untrue and too far from neutral. I think fixing these would be a good start to removing the POV. Berserk798 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter was simply a way of noting, which I think is important, that Sheehan as a matter of course makes statements that can seem extreme, because they often are (read some of her Common Dreams columns and you'll see immediately), to both her supporters and opponents. She's received criticism for this from the pro-Iraq war right but that hasn't made her change her mode of rhetoric/discourse. Badagnani 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In steps Badagnani to block constructive criticism. I think Veritek83 and Berserk798 have valid points. The sitting on the fence "source" is a Sheehan column! How could that be a source regarding observations on the left and the right? She can't make objective observations of her speech from both points of view. Is Sheehan politically on both the left and the right? Durbinmj 12:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable for being notable?

I have to wonder about the encyclopedic nature of the subject. It seems to me that she has done nothing worthy of recognition except for striving to gain it. Should we as Wikipedians be aiding this?

Without commenting on her politics, I cannot say that she is a particularly articulate, logical or consistent commentator on her chosen area. Her one-eyed bigotry is readily apparent, and I have to ask if whether by giving her so much attention we are aiding in a POV slant to our coverage of current events. --Pete 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is notable; if the Associated Press is writing about it, it's worth noting. It is NOT Wikipedia's job to determine the worth of someone's rhetoric. If they're standing on a soap box as national as Ms. Sheehan, it's notable. --Rapturerocks 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do all of Sheehan's individual public appearances need to be mentioned, though? (It'd be like the Bob Dylan article having a sentence on each of his live shows, or George W. Bush referencing every single one of his campaign speeches. Having them all is pedantic and all of them aren't notable.) --Hobbesy3 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question and I can't really answer it. I don't tend to add that sort of information to Wiki. How could we pare it down do you think? --Rapturerocks 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Married?

I'm just wondering, is Cindy Sheehan married? ~ UBeR 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See August 12, 2005 entry at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas. Maybe she's divorced now, not sure. Badagnani 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read (here: [2]) that her war protests were the cause of her marriage ending. To be exact, she said, "she sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war", but it doesn't go into specifics. —MJCdetroit 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The above link is dead. Here is a cite with the same: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919775/ Dogru144 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

She is divorced. As sources that came out today reported, her divorce was finalized some time ago: [3]. DickClarkMises 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

Under the references, links 37, 45, and 46 are broken. I'll leave it to an admin to fix them as I would prefer not to touch such a controversial page ;) Cobalt2020 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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." [4]

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.

Citing Sources

hey all, I cleaned up about 14 of the links in the article. The rest need to be cleaned as well. Simply do what I've already done. I encourage you all to keep the sources in accordance with wikipedia. Buzz me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted this months ago, and no one has acted. This article has been tagged because the links/refs need to be cleaned up. I'm again posting to say this needs to be done. I encourage you all to work on cleaning up and making them more on par with wikiP. --Maniwar (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-war campaign

This section needs a complete rewrite. Once it is finished, and sourced appropriately, the article will have attained B-Class. There are related articles connected to this one, and an attempt should be made to summarize them in this section. It is therefore appropriate to rename this section "Overview" per WP:SERIES. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheehan is a Christian

" I left the Roman Catholic Church permanently after the 2004 elections, when many Roman Catholic Bishops and priests encouraged their flocks to vote for George W. Bush because he was "pro-life.""Make Me an Instrument of Peace". "I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.""David Barsamian: Cindy Sheehan Interview". Kgrr 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Candidacy

Sorry about the confusion in the edits. I received information that she planned to run against Rep. Pelosi if Pelosi failed to try to impeach Bush. Then I heard it wasn't true... then that source changed back. Lots of confusion here but now: She is planning on running if there is no impeachment effort.--Gcilley 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Also, my edit summaries say "senate"... She is planning on running for the house of reps. not the senate. I'm a mess today. Gcilley 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... its funny .. it seems that she is (deleted per policy) .... well not too suprizing from her— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk)

Note that the above user(S) of a shared IP address has been blocked for vandalism several times already per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.107.0.73

Carol Moore 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The page should be changed, she threatened Pelosi to run against her, the article uses too week of words, it should say threatened not considering.

This issue is moot now that she has stated that she will run against Pelosi.[5] Terjen 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Cindy Sheehan is not Irish-American and should be removed from that category. 75.34.26.160 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether she is or not, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence even if she is. Per WP:MOSBIO, only American should be used for true Americans. Ethnicity should be discussed further into article unless it is specifically what makes her notable.--Gloriamarie 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. The entry absolutely adds no value to the article or to an Encyclopedia. There is too much hyphenated-Americanism going on, and basically every biography should then be hyphenated since we all stem from some other countries. I would like to see it removed, and unless there is consensus against it, I may remove it myself. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong conclusion from canadian polls

There is a sentence in the first topic (last para, under heading 'anti-war campaign) to make it appear as though Cindy Sheehan was lying or making things up, and that statement incorrectly states that Prime minister Harper of Canada had support from all over canada. Whereas the opposite is true. If you click on the link that is cited (#22) it is clear that Harper's party did not have support in Quebec. Therefore the statement that Harper had support in all parts of Canada is factually incorrect and should be removed.--207.194.108.93 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are correct, but since that poll was about Harper's party and not specifically Harper, I checked and saw a better poll in March, indicating that even in Quebec, he was the most frequent first choice as the most likely to be a good Prime Minister. --Habap 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shorten the page

I would say, the best thing to do, is shorten the page. She is not that big of a figure to warrant such a large description to her life. Just a few paragraphs, concentrating on the major events is all that is needed. A paragraph on Casey, her camp Casey, and her run for Congress (more, if she is to win). And a short section on what her critics say.

This, I believe, would make it more NPOV.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). I do not believe the article should be shortened; this is an encyclopedia.--Gloriamarie 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why it needs to be shortened. No real encyclopedia would allow such voluminous fluff on a barely notable figure. Algabal 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This entry desperately needs shortening. The subject is inconsequential; she's a webroots creation with no staying relevance (really, she's nothing more topical than ObamaGirl - or Two Girls One Cup, for that matter). That all you can muster in defense of shortening the entry is "this is an encyclopedia" is both hilarious and inane. Algabal states the obvious when he/she notes that prolixity is not the hallmark of an encyclopedia, particularly not for trivial subjects. I'd shorten this thing myself, but I'm wary of getting invested in any exercise that will only be reverted within 24 hours by her web-zealous cohorts. BasilSeal 11:02, 25 June 2008

Antiwar campaign

The antiwar campaign section has a neutrality tag; I'm not sure how long it's been there or if the section has actually been checked for neutrality yet. The Hurricane Rita comment is listed as a "controversy", yet when conducting a search of the phrase used, Wikipedia is the second hit, Free Republic (a forum and not a reliable source) is the first, an Associated Content (user-generated) site is the third, and a Blogger blog is the fourth. It doesn't seem that this created much controversy among mainstream news sources at all, so it's not worthy of inclusion in the article. The Israel email seems to have been more commented on, if only by one writer at a reliable source, which doesn't seem to qualify it as a "controversy" either. This is just my two cents.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Christians|Sheehan, Cindy

Does this category really belong in this article? I would suspect that a a category called American Christians is about someone who demonstrates, shows, and earns that category. Just like I don't think she's earned or deserves the Irish American category because it is not significant enough, I don't thinks she has earned or deserves this category. Now, I'm not talking about her being a Christian but I am talking about what justifies her being added to this category. What say the rest of you? --Maniwar (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References, and Prison Planet interview

I've started formatting the references. My goal is just to make the reference section display better. Most references now are just the URLs themselves, which do not break, causing the two columns to overlap.

I notice that some references that use the template do not display correctly, but I could not find out what the problem is. Perhaps someone more familiar with the template can look into this.

I also restored the Prison Planet interview reference. In this context, it does not matter whether Prison Planet is a reliable source or not; the paragraph is about things she said in this interview, so the interview itself is the best source there is.—Graf Bobby 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found the problem with the templated entries: A line break in the title causes incorrect display. In two cases, I cropped the title when fixing this. I don't see a point in including the subtitle of an article in the reference link.—Graf Bobby 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with what I wanted to do. Again, I did not format any links according to the template with author, publisher, access date and all that; I leave that to someone else. I just wanted the reference section to display correctly and thus be properly usable, it is now.—Graf Bobby 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph Deletion

I have removed the paragraph that read:

Cindy Sheehan was to appear at a rally in Charlotte, NC on July 17th 2007. Due to the presence of right-wing groups, including the "Gathering of Eagles," who had threatened her in the past, combined with the refusal by the police to separate the counter-demonstrators from the demonstration itself, Sheehan relocated to a business a few miles away where she spoke with supporters.

because it was unsourced and potentially libelous. - Skaraoke 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not 'retired'

The parts that say she has retired need to be rewritten, I think. Despite her announcement a few months ago, she has continued to be involved in anti-war activism, even being arrested today at General Petraeus' report to Congress. The announcement can be kept, but lines like "In May 2007, Sheehan officially ended her involvement as an anti-war activist..." in the first paragraph should be rewritten since it is clearly not accurate. -Kraw Night 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delicious Blended Frozen Treat Fast...

"Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies.[55][neutrality disputed]"

How can the above line be disputed for its neutrality? It's linked to an open internet letter, written by Sheehan herself, in which she discusses the terrible trials of trying to find a sweet, delicious smoothie or blended juice/protein coctail in Madid, while she was on her way to Venice. Sheehan herself talks about being on a "fast," while in the same paragraph bemoaning the fact that she had to eat ice cream because she couldn't get a smoothie, whatever the hell that is.

I can't even tell whether the disputed line was written by someone who was pro- or anti-Sheehan! How can that be POV? It makes it obvious that Sheehan wasn't really "fasting," but the fact that Sheehan doesn't understand that "fasting" means "not eating... not even cool, refreshing, blended treats" doesn't make it POV. I can't tell whether it was written by a Sheehan supporter (trying to justify her non-fast) or a Sheehan hater (laughing at her for calling her all-smoothie diet a "fast"). Either way it's not POV.DougRWms 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't let your hatred for this woman interfere with your editing of the article. It's pretty transparent. Please look up what "fast" actually means before you edit the article. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that sentence is POV. I suspect that the objection may be the use of the word "smoothies" since its kinda sounds like a fun thing (the tv commercial where the tough bikers are talking about and drinking smoothies comes to mind here). While I really don't see a problem, perhaps if the we substituted the word "smothies" with something that sounds less trivial. "Milkshake" perhaps? I dunno. Doesn't sound like a major issue in any event. Dman727 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's transparent is the fact that she didn't fast. That's not as important, though, as the fact that your edit keeps removing a citation. If you think the sentence is POV and want to change it, I'm happy to entertain suggestions. But don't remove the citation. Sheehan uses the word "smoothies" to describe her non-fast meals.DougRWms 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What's transparent is the fact that you don't understand what the word fast means. She is on a liquid diet. That is fasting. I have no problem with the citations but I do have a problem with you trying to insert your feelings of her being a hypocrite in the article. I don't like the woman at all but I hate pov pushing more. Turtlescrubber 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to simply say that she was on a liquid diet, at least if Wikipedia's article on liquid diets is accurate. Smoothies are not liquid, they're blended solid foods. Now, that's not to say that she didn't stick to that diet (although I haven't seen any confirmation of that), or that it didn't represent an inconvenience for her. I'm sure that her layover between Madrid and Venice was a pretty tense time. However, the fact remains that what she was doing (if she was observing the diet at all) was blending her food, or having it blended for her. There is no POV in drawing from the citation (Sheehan's own words) to add information on what she ate during her "fast." DougRWms 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out what a liquid diet is. Smoothies are liquid, you drink them through a straw. She didn't "eat" anything and your pov is spilling into your words and the article. It is a liquid diet. Please do some research. If you check the code pink page (which she is listed on) it includes tips for sustaining their liquid diet. This is not a water only diet which is also called starving to death. Please stop reverting the page. Turtlescrubber 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't think "liquid diet" is sufficient, should we explain what a liquid diet is? Turtlescrubber 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting in verifiable information about the aspects of her fast is sufficient and notable. If readers want information on nutrition and how other subjects fast that information is out there. For this article and subsection what is important is the details of the subjects fast.Dman727 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously what is the problem here? Cindy is a notable individual and certainly her fast is notable (as she intended). This an encyclopedia and its goal is to illustrate notable things. Cindy has made a point several times to point out the sacrifice she is making and the details of her diet. I suppose that the term "smoothie" has some concerned as it sounds like a fun, trivial term/word. But thats not a rephrase, they her own exact phrasing. Sure we could cut it out details, but thats not the mission here. I just don't see a pov issue. Dman727 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to my reading of the WP article liquid diet, what she appears to have been on is a "full liquid diet". Based on this, we should just call it a "full liquid diet" in the article, wiki link to the particular section in that article, and leave out the particular components of the diet as extraneous trivia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably a ok compromise. Removing details will likely satisfy folks who think that specific food items represents someones POV. Granted it makes the article less informative, but clearly information should take a backseat in this case. Dman727 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag added

Listing what someone can eat on a liquid fast? Why? Trying to paint Sheehan as a hypocrite. Should I also list what she won't eat for balance. Hot dogs, hamburgers, bread, cheese, twinkies, etc. Or shoud we include other things she imbibes like water, coffee, blueberry juice, orange juice, lemonade, broth, carrot juice, juicy juice, capri suns, sunny D. Why the pov pushing? Lets discuss. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're begging the question. There's no need to list which foods she forwent, because not eating is inherent in the definition of the intransitive verb "to fast." Certainly, that term also includes abstaining from certain foods, e.g. a Catholic honoring Lent by abstaining from eating meat. However, in such a case (i.e., this case) it is illustrative and not at all POV to point out the nature of her "fast." To simply state that she "fasted" without adding detail is to imply that she went without nourishment for the prescribed period, which is inaccurate. I leave it to the mods to determine whether the citation as added is POV. DougRWms 220.144.156.150 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about the citation. The citation is fine. A liquid fast is still a fast. If you cared enough to be npov, then the description should be something like "abstained from eating solid foods". Following your logic, I will add all of the liquids she is allowed to eat. Did you stop reading my response after the first sentence? Turtlescrubber 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give citations for any allegations

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the "Sheenan" thing and the "911" was changed to "9/11". --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookywolf (talk • contribs)

Material removed from Code Pink article

We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [6]. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculously POV, Pro-Sheehan mess masquerading as encyclopedia entry.

This entire article reads like a biased, one-sided love letter to one of the most controversial Americans of the last five years. Wikipedia is disgraced as a source of encyclopedic information when it is allowed to display such blatant bias by tone and omission.

Where are the "Criticism" or "controversy" sections I see applied to so many conservative political figures for this article. Not everyone thinks she is a wonderful "Peace Mom" after all. Heavy, heavy criticism from all forms of conservative media and politicians have opined about her and labeled her (justly, IMO) 1.) a terrorist sympathizer 2.) an anti-Semite 3.) a woman who is shamelessly using her son's death to climb to fame while mocking the conflict he cared enough about to fight and die in.

Surely you can find links to Townhall, FoxNews, Limbaugh, Bush admin. officials, Washington Times, etc. that would flesh out the opposition to this woman felt and expressed by just as large a group of detractors as she has supporters (her support seems to be amply covered already, I see).

Just because lefties seem to dominate the ranks of Wiki contributors and moderators doesn't mean that this site should turn into one-sided liberal blog. Keep it balanced. Delete nothing, but add the counter opinions too.

-TDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this article is biased, nobody's keeping you from looking up proper sources and presenting the other side. Have fun, and good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2008 (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

See also:

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/09/cindy_sheehans.php

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cindy?from=510

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11271761.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sheehan300905.htm

Anyone wanting to include a selection of Cindy Sheehan quotes should include this one. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protesting FOR Islamists....

Seems like she is in Egypt holding a protest on behalf of people the government accuses of being a threat to the state. I have no clue how to word it, but I'm hoping someone will. [Link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPMN401&show_article=1]. [Link http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5539957.html]. If she continues on this path, perhaps she should be included with those of providing "comfort and aid" for the enemy in the form or propaganda like Tokyo Rose.--Hourick (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Casey Sheehan's Grave (again)

Once again, I am commenting on the subject of Casey Sheehan's grave. I see now there there is absolutely no mention of headstone, instead of poor mentioning. I see that the page is semi-locked, but this whole section has been deleted. [[ Cindy Sheehan]] didn't add a headstone to her son's grave for 2 years after he died. That is relevant to the article because it beings a little hypocrisy to her message about how much she loved her son, and where her reasons are for being such an activist. If no one knew about her before this grave incident, anyone with an email address knew about her after that email circulated around the internet describing who she is and the fact her son's headstone was MIA. I am sure many people who have looked her up have looked her up after reading that email.

The whole affair is documented on snopes.com [7]. I would be glad to write the section and add it to the article, but it's almost a waste of time if this article keeps getting edited and whole sections taken out without discussion. Can someone with more experience please advise? Chexmix53 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The context provided by the snopes article provides plenty of reasonable explanations beyond a blanket charge of "hypocrisy". A dispute with a mortuary doesn't deserve an entire section in an encyclopedia article, nor should we be providing a sopabox for those who with to use a minor dispute to attack someone. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she was so 'outraged' by the war in Iraq and that her outrage was sparked by the death of her beloved son was shadowed by the fact that she didn't even take the time or the money to put a grave marker on her son's grave until it was discovered that she hadn't done it. The marker still probably wouldn't be there to this day if she wasn't put under the spotlight of this email. You can not have a whole article about how upset she is about the war, and how upset she is about her son's 'necklace death' if you don't offset it by putting both sides of the argument in the article. That makes the article disputable on it's neutrality and makes it a lopsided article. It's wasn't just the dispute about the mortuary, it was the whole thing. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What argument? All you've provide is your personal interpretation of these minor events. That is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheehan's influences were brought under fire again when in 2006, an email was widely circulated via the internet and various networking sites that brought attention to the fact that Casey Sheehan's grave did not have a formal headstone (at the time this email started being circulated, it had been over two years since his death). In April of 2006, after these emails were brought to Sheehan's attention, she made a statement that alluded to the fact that she was grief stricken and couldn't bring herself to put his death in marble. She spoke about visiting his grave "almost on a daily basis". Later it was stated that the reason the formal tombstone wasn't added to his grave was because of a disagreement over money paid, or not paid to the cemetery. On May 26, 2006, a formal headstone was placed on Casey Sheehan's grave.

Referenced from Snopes.com, which was referenced from The Vacaville Reporter and truthout.org Considering the first sentence in this article refers to the death of her son and the aftermath of that being her dedication to vindicating his death, this is relevant. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add this if no one else can present a good reason not to... Chexmix53 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you can demonstrate that a "widely circulated email" is important and encyclopedic enough to be included, your version has terrible POV issues, most notably in how you put the actual facts of the event as an afterthought to your spin on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no spin, those were the events that unfolded after the email. There is nothing in the article that makes her look anything less than an angel and that is not right when there are all these truths out there. It's not that the email should be inserted in the article, the facts should be, and that just happens to me the medium that brought this story to light. It's not just an email, it's something that happened that got publicized in the email. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If your paragraph was really about the events and not the email, then it would have discussed the actual events, not tacked them on the end as an afterthought to a recounting of the email's spin. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok: Sheehan's influences were brought under fire again when in 2006, attention was brought to the fact that Casey Sheehan's grave did not have a formal headstone. In April of 2006, after public curiosity over the event was brought to Sheehan's attention, she made a statement that alluded to the fact that she was grief stricken and couldn't bring herself to put his death in marble. She spoke about visiting his grave "almost on a daily basis". Later it was stated that the reason the formal tombstone wasn't added to his grave was because of a disagreement over money paid, or not paid to the cemetery. On May 26, 2006, a formal headstone was placed on Casey Sheehan's grave.

Referenced from Snopes.com, which was referenced from The Vacaville Reporter and truthout.org Considering the first sentence in this article refers to the death of her son and the aftermath of that being her dedication to vindicating his death, this is relevant. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy section

While I initially agreed that the section is irrelevant and needed to be removed, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the section should be put back in and retitled. It is something that she believes is true and might add to what her state of mind is. I'm not looking to add credence to the idiocy of the 911 conspiracy theorists, but it is part of her makeup. --Hourick (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned things up a bit

I tossed alot of irrelevant stuff. Please refer to Pres. Bush not Bush.Geo8rge (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, part II

The article mentions her parents and her son, but makes no mention of her husband. I am adding reference to her husband, Pat. Dogru144 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Crawford Peace House

I don't think her merely being on the board of this organization is really worth mentioning. There is no special reason to think that she made any of the decisions. When the organization's problems are mentioned it seems like an attempt at guilt by association. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

The article says: "On July 23 at the Capitol she announced that she would run against Pelosi based on her failure to attempt impeachment of Bush; she was then arrested for disorderly conduct." I rather resent the implication that the United States is a country where a person gets arrested for announcing a political candidacy. Either explain what she did to get arrested or take off the information that she was, please. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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)