Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

WCW/RCP rally photo

Why was the photo from the "World Can't Wait" rally removed? Is in NPOV showing a photo of Sheehan at a rally at which she spoke, with one of the speakers at that rally whom she appeared to greet? Sure, the fact that he's a communist calling for revolution and for Bush to step down doesn't particularly paint Sheehan in the most flattering light, but it appears she did speak at the rally and did greet this guy. If we're going to be NPOV, why can't we include this photo? --Habap 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't portray Sheehan in a favorable light so some indignant individuals decided to continually take it down. The photo is legitimate and we have a video to prove it. It should not be removed again. This is wikipedia we should show both viewpoints to establish equilibruim in the article.

JJstroker 08:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dawgknot's edit...

He added the quote:

In remarks on April 27, 2005 at a rally for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, she said "America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for"."[1]

and it was reverted with the explantion that the country referred to was Iraq. Is that the case? From reading the text, it seems positive she was talking about the U.S. The entire context is about how bad America is (you were taught wrong in schools, why is it okay for the US to have Nukes, but not Syria, etc.). I am not going to re-add, I would just like a little clarification. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that she didn't say Iraq. It's only the opinion of that editor, an opinion which I do not share, that she meant something other than what she said. If this article is going to have even a semblance of NPOV, then this editor cannot impose their view on what was "meant". Would that be original research? While it's tempting to revert it back, I'll at least offer this up for a reasonable discussion, if one can be had.Dawgknot 04:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, wherever this discussion goes, I must give you credit for not engaging in a pointless edit war. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the quote in context from the site provided: "This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}". If it's not Iraq that's being referred to, why would she say the US wasn't worth dying for, then, in the very next breath, say she'd take her rolling pin and beat people over the head with it if the US were attacked? Wisco 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's your preference to add more of her comments, that's fine by me. I doubt that much will be gained by adding all that you offer. Perhaps the quote can end at the first "Iraq." It's entirely irrelevant what either of us believes she "meant".Dawgknot 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that she's talking about the US - it makes the statement self-contradictory. Besides, what does it add to the article? I'm not all that concerned with making Sheehan look good or bad - history will take care of that. This just isn't the 'gotcha' quote you'd like it to be. Wisco 05:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does she contradict herself? Very well then, she contradicts herself.

Seriously, having read LV's long quotation below, I'm convinced that she really did mean to refer to the US. But it is certainly hard to tell. I like the idea of including the first mention of 'Iraq' and letting the reader decide. 69.181.74.76 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuller context (highlighting is mine):

Too many people in our country that don’t even really know we have a war going on. You know, they never have to think of the war, and I’ll never, ever forget this war. I can never forget it, even when I’m sleeping {tears} I know that we’re in a war and I know that George Bush and his band of neo-cons and their neo-con agenda killed my son. And I’ll never, ever, ever forget.

I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}

Please – teach your babies, teach your babies better than I taught my babies. When Congress gave George Bush the right to go to war, they abrogated their constitutional responsibilities and they basically made our constitution null and void. We have no checks and balances in this country. We have no recourse. If they’re going to what they did to Lynne, they don’t have backs they call names, what we need to be is, we the people, we’re their checks and balances. We’re the only checks and balances. We have to stand up and say, Not only is this our school, this is our country. We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people. Our country needs to {unintelligible} we need to start over again.

The rest of the speech is more "anti-American" (as it is right now) rhetoric. I think the country referred to is America. The whole speech is about how wrong America is. Not just about Iraq. I dunno. At least that's the way I read it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User Bilbo has edited out the word "radical" in the Lynne Stewart reference. I only point out that that is exactly how she refers to herself on her own webpage. [2] It is also how the Washington Post refers to her.[3]. It seems to me that POV is not a problem. She is clearly not a White & Case lawyer wearing spats and oxfords. I think the item should remain as before the edit.Dawgknot 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

She is referring to Iraq when saying "this country is not worth dying for." This is made very clear by the fact that she then states that if the USA were invaded, she would fight (presumably risking her life) to expel the invaders. Most likely she should have said "that country" rather than "this country" to make this more clear. Badagnani 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I can't see this as referring to the US unless you hate her so much that you want it to refer to the US. It should be clear to any english speaker. Wisco 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. When I saw the video of her statement, I thought for sure that she meant: America is not worth dying for. I've read the text many times since and while I understand the argument to the contrary, I think it is a reasonable conclusion. I thought LordV made a remarkably cogent analysis of her statement on this page above. Her predicate reference was to America and every subsequent use of the pronoun, this, was also a reference to America. It's hard to say conclusively that "this country" all of a sudden applies to Iraq. Nonetheless, she said what she said. She alone is responsible for its meaning. It's not up to us here to interpret it.Dawgknot 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I don't hate Cindy Sheehan. I think she should watch what she says sometimes, but I couldn't care one way or another. I just think that by a read of the entire speech, she is bashing the United States throughout, so why not there as well? Perhaps I am wrong, but it is possible that she meant the U.S. It would be a little weird for someone to give a speech about how awful they thought Hamas is, but then in the middle say how they wouldn't die for Israel. It just seems very out of place to me. But like I said, I could be wrong. I was just seeking clarification. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Radical" Stewart

Editor badagnani continues to summarily revert edits without any discussion. The description of Lynne Stewart is not POV. It's how she identifies herself in the first line of her own website. It is also how the Washington Post refers to her. That editor would be better occupied if he/she participates in a discussion on this page first to see what accommodation can be reached before reaching for the revert button.

I will also change the editorial comments of the counterprotest. The numbers speak for themselvesDawgknot 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I will accept the current status of these two issues as is resolved by editor Badagnani. Nicely done.Dawgknot 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The description is POV. Her calling herself "radical" is a point-of-view. She can call herself anything she wants. The question is what should the Wikipedia call her. The Wiki is neutral on whether she's "radical" or not. If she called her "goddess" would you insist on worshipping her? Mark K. Bilbo 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Still, while the use of the word, radical, in most cases, would be POV, in Lynne Stewart's case, it is descriptive, accurate and she accepts it as appropriate. Goddess, on the other hand would be subject to serious debate regardless of how much she believes it. Neither you nor I, regardless of our respective views of her, would accept goddess. But do either of us dispute radical as accurate? How can that be POV if it is, in fact, widely held. Would anybody object to referring to Howard Stern as "shock-jock"? Or Avakian as communist? These are all true descriptions that the respective parties would accept. It's not worth my time to debate this further. There are claims that this article is definitely NOT NPOV. I don't accept that, but this is an example of editors trying to protect these public players from the implications associated with their own conduct and words. That said, they shouldn't be trashed...just accurately described.Dawgknot 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"They" above is "public players", not "editors". That should have been more clear.Dawgknot 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there doesn't appear to be a single negative thing about Sheehan that can be removed for whatever reason --Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)without you repeating your mantra of "...this is an example of editors trying to protect these public players from the implications associated with their own conduct and words..." indicates to me that there's a very determined POV lurking in the background. Would I "dispute" that radical is accurate? I have no idea. I know nothing about the woman. I dispute the Wiki calling her "radical." The word is purely subjective. One person's "radical" is another's moderate. Shrug. Mark K. Bilbo 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree about identifying the critics as "conservatives." It'll be obvious to the reader in the first place if they know anything about the people in question, it adds nothing but a stray sentence hanging in space, and the Wiki needs to avoid making judgemental comments as much as possible.) --Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'll freely admit that I despise the woman with an intensity that reaches loathing and disgust. But I know rudimentary fairness. I also understand what this encyclopedia should be. We can begin with the fact that if POV rules, it will be of no use to anyone and will become yet another dead URL. While I view this page as pretty much a shrine to this skank, I would (and can be counted upon to) dispute any contention that it hasn't been reasonably neutral (given the subject matter) and would support the work of the editors so far. That said, it is clear to me your own views are pretty obvious as well. For example, it is not only conservatives that have been critical. Except on the fringes, she is certainly a pretty marginal character. So you don't have to look at the O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's to find source material. The August Rasmassun poll certainly found folks who aren't conservative who dislike her even to include 18% of those that favor withdrawing from Iraq. It would be remarkable if a poll taken today didn't find that her 15 minutes expired a long time ago. All that said, we can work together and I hope you will agree that I have tried to participate in the wiki spirit. If not, say so.Dawgknot 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my POV is pretty clear: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. If "it is not only conservatives that have been critical" then go get some sources already. One of my personal rules around the Wiki is "don't tell me, show me." --Mark K. Bilbo 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I"m glad we understand each other...lolDawgknot 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, did you notice I just agreed with you on not introducing the section on "media personalities" as "conservatives say?" --Mark K. Bilbo 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We're getting somewhere. Now, maybe we can agree that Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer. But I doubt it. As I said earlier. I don't do edit wars and this isn't worth worrying about. Although self-described radical is an accurate statementDawgknot 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the compromise position of "self-described radical lawyer" hasn't been discussed yet? Is that too wordy? I'm not sure that it's either useful or necessary to describe someone Sheehan supports as "radical". Thus far, it seems to me that anyone who might be considered "moderate" wouldn't get her support, so it kind of goes without saying.... but I offer the compromise nonetheless. --Habap 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it. Looks to me like calling herself a "radical human rights lawyer" is a pretension. She's the Big! Radical! Defender! Of! Human! Rights! (I can just hear a motherly voice saying "that's nice dear" <grin>). --Mark K. Bilbo 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan communist photo

Whatever you personal beliefs are she was hanging around with communists and this needs to be shown to establish equilibruim. I dont like little 16 year old coming and saying remarks like "That is so 1950's'. The ignorance of youth. Wikipedia is not a place to remove links that you dont agree with because that was "So yesterday". We deal with facts so please do not remove it without discussion or I will have you reported for vandalism.

JJstroker 13:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture doesn't show she was "hanging around" with anybody. For all we know, she just happened at that moment to be walking past somebody who was at a very public gathering. Feel free to "report" me for anything you wish. Mark K. Bilbo 13:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she spoke at the rally after that guy did. You can find a video that precedes the photo. I had assumed also that she just happened to be standing next to him, but that is not the case. Watch the video and read more about the event (which has a video of her speech also). She wasn't just "hanging around" a communist, she spoke at a rally organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party, which included several speakers trying to inflame the crowd into revolution to remove Bush from office. I don't agree with what they had to say, but they do have the Freedom of Speech. --Habap 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things. For one, "Zombietime.com" has an overt agenda. Not that he (she? they?) can't have one nor that it's "wrong" to have one but that means there is a bias present and the interpretation has to be questioned if NPOV means anything. For another, the picture doesn't show more than she was at an event and at some point she was in physical proximity to some other person. I'm sorry, I'm always suspicious when someone starts inserting materials from a website they own and control. I'd expect others to be suspicious if I started referencing a website I owned. Mark K. Bilbo 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, Reliable Sources states:

"Personal websites as secondary sources"

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources."

"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.

"The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Zombietime.com is a personal website yes? Mark K. Bilbo 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur that he does seem to have an agenda, despite writing on several of his pages that he is just displaying photos. His comments in between the photos all indicate his bias and agenda. I think we need to look elsewhere for confirmation. It's just hard to argue with the video evidence, which does, in fact, show her greeting him right after he gives a speech on revolution and Bush leaving office. I will spend some time trying to find other evidence and photos. --Habap 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that she cannot be "protected" from the implications that some might draw from where she chooses to speak and before whom. Would you not insist that a photo be displayed complete with descriptive caption showing Bill Frist speaking before Bob Jones University or before a local klan klaven? Regardless of a concern that disparaging inferences shouldn't be drawn from such an event with communists, you cannot, nor should not, try to insulate her from the implications if others don't share your view. The photos should surely stay up along with the caption. She has made her choices, presumably without concern for the ramifications. Dawgknot 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Mark K. Bilbo 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture was released to the public domain from a political rally. Do you honestly think you are going to find this picture from a reliable source such as CNN? It doesnt matter who hosts it as long as it's legitimate. The picture just happens to be hosted on this website but that is not the origin of the picture. I just feel people are taking it down because it looks bad which upsets me because this is against wiki policy. I feel that people need to see all sides of the story and draw their own conclusions.

Dawgknot - If Bill Frist was speaking at a Klan rally and you have a picture I say post it. I dont like any type of censorship whatsoever. I believe people will make the right decisions if they see all sides of the story as Thomas Jefferson said. Also thank you all for adding an explanation about the rally on the page. I feel that this balances out the page a bit but I still dont see a reason for the image to be removed.

PS Cindy chose to associate with communists on that particular day. She knew that cameras and pictures would be taken. She openely talked with the communists leaders and gave a speech right after. She should know that people are open to draw their own conclusions from that. If she didn't want to be seen as a communist she would be there period. If I were a communist I wouldnt make a speech at a pro life rally and be laughing and making jokes with their leadership.

JJstroker 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We can all be fairly certain that if a picture of Bush and Abramoff at a holiday party is ever released, it would appear quickly on a page here regardless of whatever mistaken conclusions a viewer might draw. I think that editor Bilbo is overstating the Wiki reliable sources policy in this case. Unless there is some question of fraud in the picture itself, I can't imagine that the Wiki policy would extend to retrieving a photo file. I think that there is a possibility that those that keep reverting its posting are more interested in shielding her from adverse inferences than in protecting wiki policy. But then I could be wrong. I would like to see the discussion follow a more substantive path. Dawgknot 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy says never. As in "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." I think that's pretty clear. There's no way to verify material from some stray personal website and so the Wiki has a rule against such. Mark K. Bilbo 01:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm are you sure it's a secondary source? The policy says: "An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness". My earlier point is that this website is merely a portal to gain access to a photo. The photo itself, unless fraudulent, seems clearly a primary source to me. The video too, unless fraudulent, should also be thought of as a primary source. Where it is hosted hardly seems relevant.Dawgknot 02:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy amplifies with "That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." Unless the owner of the website is Sheehan, it's a secondary source. Also, we don't have any way to verify the picture. It's not that the picture is a fraud, it's that we can't know whether it is. I mean, how do you know it's legit? Mark K. Bilbo 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we were at the rally Mark. Secondly the wiki policy only applies to information; not pictures. There is nothing wrong I assure you. I cant help get the impression that you are just trying to block the picture form being put up. There is a difference between a picture and a personal opinion of a blog. Wiki policy clearly does not apply to information as a picture but only text given that text indicates a bias while photos speak for themselves.

JJstroker 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you were at the rally? Are you admitting to violating WP:NOR now? Mark K. Bilbo 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(For that matter, isn't some random guy's Flikr page the source for the uppermost photo of Cindy Sheehan wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt? Why isn't that also a "stray personal website" that can't be verified? It could have been photoshopped from a picture of Cindy Sheehan wearing a Taco Bell t-shirt for all that we know. 69.181.74.76 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

If you think a violation of policy has occured, you're a Wikipedia editor just as much as any of the rest of us. So challenge it already. Mark K. Bilbo 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with editor Badagnani's removal this morning of the photo. I agree that the person she is with should be identified, but the editor cannot shield her from the implications that arise from the places she chooses to speak. Why is she immune to the very issue that would be applied to someone else. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if President Bush spoke at Oral Roberts University (ooops, he did), a photo of that appearance would be relevant to the discussion? She spoke at an event that was sponsored by some pretty rabid communists. That is a choice she made and editors here ought not protect her. Or is there another issue? It should have been discussed here before that editor removed it.Dawgknot 16:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo should be fine to include in the article if the date and location is given, and the name of the individual with Sheehan is also included. I don't think it's Bob Avakian (the RCP's leader) because I think he is banned from the U.S. However, it is POV (clearly, from viewing the photographer's website) to only include the communist photo and not also a photo of Sheehan with one of the other (non-revolutionary) pro-peace/anti-war groups she regularly works with, such as Veterans for Peace. Various communist/socialist groups have been involved in the anti-Iraq War (and Afghanistan War) effort since the beginning, organizing some of the largest rallies, and while not everyone approves of this, the communists are often perceived as "allies" nonetheless, for the sole reason that they are one of the most active groups against these wars. I do believe that Sheehan's connections to various communist groups were already mentioned at least 3 other times in the article aside from the photo; these were inserted recently and nobody removed them because they seemed to be factual.Badagnani 17:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the website itself has a strong POV, but that's not the issue. The website is merely hosting the photo and the video of the event. We are merely using a link to the photo. There is no other editorial connection that I can think of. The viewer of this article doesn't even see the site. Dawgknot 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And you know this picture has not been manipulated how? Mark K. Bilbo 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad the date was included in the heading and I wrote who she was with in the picture details. This whole page goes over that she works with gold start families for peace and all your regular left wing groups. This is known. If Bush went to a neo nazi KKK speech event and was laughing with David Duke afterwards you can guaranetee that it would be all over the news. Ironically with Sheehan nobody seems to care. I am merely hosting the photo to back up the claims that she has communist connections which is indeed factual. I have complied with all the demands there is no reason to take it down anymore.

71.131.252.182 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob Avakian

I've been digging for over an hour and can't find any evidence Avakian has returned to the US nor that he would be allowed to without being arrested. For example:

"Avakian's representatives said the author is eager to have his views more widely discussed but wants to stay out of sight because he fears government harassment. He fled America in 1981 amid what he describes in the book as a suffocating climate of intolerance." [4]

That's dated 29 April 2005. The claim that he's in the photo from the "World Can't Wait" rally needs better sourcing than "because I said so."

You know, there's plenty of material that the RCP is heavily involved with and even initiated the "World Can't Wait" rally without playing this silly picture game. Mark K. Bilbo 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not having been familiar with Avakian, I assumed it was the head of the RCP speaking. Looking at the photo and the videos, it obviously isn't Avakian, but the page asserted that he is "one of" the leaders of the RCP. --Habap 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The user that uploaded the picture made the claim here. This whole thing is getting silly. There's plenty of material that can be used in the Wiki to show the connection between the rally and the RCP. The site for the WCW rallies state the RCP was a founder. This isn't some kind of "hidden" information. Not by any measure. Frankly, I'm getting suspicious that this is all about getting personal material (and POV) rammed into the Wiki. Mark K. Bilbo 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited that description since it doesn't even look like Avakian. --Habap 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I support the use of the picture as a primary source, I do not think it should be posted until the man in the photo is identified. I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to do that and can't find it. He's clearly not Avakian. He is obviously representing the RCP and he walks off the stage and hugs Sheehan, but until we can indentify him by name, it should be held off the article. Dawgknot 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. Forget my last. I just read the caption and it looks fine. The last time I saw it, it referred to the commies.Dawgknot 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep shoving that the person she is with is a communist? I see no reason for it to be continually taken down.

JJstroker 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I added this tag because the article in its present state is very unbalanced. It reads like a press release from the Sheehan scheduling office. It allows very little criticism, and what critical things are shown are followed by refutations, swinging the balance back to a very lopsided approach. Balance needs to be added to this article, and the discussion above shows that others have tried but have not been successful. --StanZegel (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you see as "unbalanced"? What would you like to add? What would you like to delete? Don't just make accusations. Only vandalism was removed from the article. --Asbl 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to wholeheartedly agree with StanZegel about the neutrality of this article. Reading the section discussing the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh programs and much of the article sounds like talking points from "Move On. org" or something.

EXAMPLES... "A closer examination of the original interview shows that Drudge's story had involved selective editing" (SELECTIVE implies a conservative agenda). This sentence needs to be removed, and the Drudge comments and the Sheehan reply need to speak for themselves.

"Limbaugh did not explain what about Sheehan's story he believed to be false, nor did he provide any evidence to support his claim. Later, on the August 17, 2005, episode of his show, Limbaugh said that his previous remarks had been taken out of context." This also violates NPOV standards. Let the reader decide if his statements lacked evidence.

On the other hand, the section entitled "Parents of other military personnel killed in Iraq" lists several examples of military family members who refuse to support Sheehan. A few examples of pro-Sheehan military families ought to be dug up and added to provide balance.

But, having read the entire article, I must be critical that it is definately left leaning. I do not feel it is my place to make editorial changes, but I encourage the authors of this article to tone down their comments and be more neutral. (Heathtech 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Quote: "Limbaugh did not explain what about Sheehan's story he believed to be false, nor did he provide any evidence to support his claim. Later, on the August 17, 2005, episode of his show, Limbaugh said that his previous remarks had been taken out of context." These verifiable facts (which means they can be disproven if they are untrue) The statement does not treat the validity of the statements, it simply states that no supporting evidence was given. If this is inaccurate, I support removing it 100%, otherwise, it should stay.Ionesco 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the article-wide POV tag, because both sides are presented in detail -- and the "criticism" section is much larger than the "support" section. If you have trouble with individual sections, please use {{POV-section}}. --James S. 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it because the article as a whole still lacks balance. As can be seen by comments elsewhere on this page, postings critical of her seem to have a short half-life. --StanZegel (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, the Limbaugh comment might be iffy, but I don't think it can be argued that the Matt Drudge comment isn't biased. I believe it LEADS the reader to have a negative perspective on Matt Drudge, which should not be the purpose of an Encyclopedia. We are not to judge if the intent of Matt Drudge was selective or circumstantial, let the reader decide based on the quoted material. If it were TRULY neutral, it would simply say, Matt Drudge said such and such, and in response, Cindy Sheehan said, this and that. And if it is neccessary to put a disclaimer on the Drudge quotes, simply state that his comments are based upon XYZ interview, and not in complete context. Now, the reader can decide for himself if Drudge's intent was sinister or had alterior motives, as the word "selective" implies. This is just one of many examples. I understand the complexities of an open internet document such as this remaining neutral, but I think it is impossible when someone, with broad editorial power, alone chooses to remove a POV tag without input from others. I am a newbie here, but having a POV tag on the article doesn't in fact MAKE it POV, it just opens up the floor for debate. BTW, If you noticed, I brought up POV issues on both sides of the issue. IMHO, POV should not be a measure of balance through the entire article, it should be a measure of balance and unbias in each and every sentence and each and every thought. If not, it becomes a debate rather than an Encyclopedia article. (158.35.225.230 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

I agree with the author. The article completely praises Sheehan and I post a photo of Sheehan attending a communist rally, which is indeed a fact and legitimate and it is continually taken down because it doesnt show her in the best light. This article is a joke.

JJstroker 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)