Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 6 September 2005

Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 1 1st Archive August 20

Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 2 2nd Archive September 2

Archived

Archived the talk again. This article needed a clean slate anyway. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the re-write:

Sheehan and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Washington, nearly three months after her son's death. In a June 24, 2004, interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she expressed concerns about the president's changing justifications for war "every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached", as well as the way the war had been handled, but also told the reporter that President Bush was "...sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." In addition Mrs Sheehan's husband Pat, whom Cindy has said shares her views, said this about the meeting" "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us."

On July 4, 2005 she was again interviewed by a local paper in Ft. Lewis, WA. regarding her meeting with President Bush and completely changed her story. This time she descibed it as "one of the most disgusting experiences (she) ever had, and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." She described President Bush as being "detached from humanity" and said that "his mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all." She continued, "He didn’t even know our names," asking "Who we'all honorin' here today?" when he first entered the room, and then referring to her as "Ma" or "Mom".

Both Sheehan's supporters and detracters were at odds at how to reconcile these two disparate accounts until photographic evidence became available.

A photo was circulated on the internet, retrieved from the cache at Google of her personal website where it was apparently taken down, that shows President Bush and Cindy Sheehan holding hands at the meeting in question . She is leaning forward and he is kissing her on the cheek. This would appear to lend more credence to her first version of what happened as opposed to her second. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/hipaatwo/sheehan.jpg

That rewrite violated WP:NOR, and as such, I reverted most of it. If you'd like to let the picture speak for itself, I'd reccomend verifying it's copyright status, uploading it to wikipedia, and linking it to the article with the caption "Cindy Sheehan kisses president bush (during/after/before) their (date) meeting." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Hip,

This was in no way a violation of WP:NOR. This is NOT original research but rather I used DIRECT QUOTES from the article which you deleted for NO reason.

I'm gonna put them back in because they reinforce a crucial point that her story CHANGED.

Why did you take those quotes out in the first place?

Big Daddy 17:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I took out the quotes because you said she said her husband speaks for her without citing such. I deleted your conclusions about what the picture meant because they were your conclusions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to read and adhere to WP:NPA. Nitpicking is an important part of editing an encyclopedia. If the evidence is "VERY VALUABLE," then you will be able to find someone to quote, rather than drawing said conclusions yourself. I told you how to get the picture included - verify it's copyright status, upload it to the encyclopedia, and include it in the article. The first word of his quote is we, but you asserted that she said he spoke for her, an assertion that remains your assertion. You will need to document such before it can be included in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you make your POV very clear in your talk discussion. I removed the comment on Olberman because it is a non-notable ad-hominem attack. I don't think either the left wing media matters or the right wing media watchdogs are particularly respected outside their supporters. The quote you provided only claims that the quotation was taken out of context without demonstrating what the other context was, there was no link for the user to check up. It is difficult to imagine that either Limbaugh was quoted out of context or that there could be a redeeming context. Limbaugh routinely calls every opponent's supporters pot-smoking and calls female opponents Femi-Nazis. --Gorgonzilla 12:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone jumped the shark quicker than Cindy Sheehan?

Thanks to Matt Drudge and Fox News revealing her true feelings about Israel and Bush, she's now got ZERO following.

My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left.

Sheehan as Rosa Parks???

I guess it just goes to show you can't change reality by manufacturing a fictional narrative in an encyclopedia, huh? Big Daddy 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll after poll in Israel has reported 60%+ majorities in favor of abandoning all the settlements in the West Bank. Sharon has become much more popular as a result of his recent moves, even though Likud are likely to dump him as their leader. So Sheehan is not that out of touch there. As for her comments on Bush, I think it is pretty clear that a significant proportion of the population share them, a proportion that has clearly grown after his response to Katrina was to continue his vacation and then go to California to dis Sheehan. --Gorgonzilla 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy, it's always fun to hear accusations of the left-wing wiki cabal. I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fo shizzle, my Kizzle. I always knew in my heart that, in Misplaced Pages, any conservative voice would be considered a troll. Thanks for confirming my suspcion.

BTW, do you libs all get the same talking points? I never suggested a left wing cabal. You guys aren't smart enough to form a cabal.

Yet this is the second or third time a Wacky Wiki has falsely accused me of such.

I guess it's true what former wikipedia EMPLOYEE said, huh?

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sange

Ps Was he a 'troll' to?? lol!

Big Daddy 14:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

News articles about Cindy Sheehan/Criticism and support

What is the method to decide what links qualify as news article, and which articles qualify criticism or support? Isn't there enough overlap to place all but the driest and most analytical articles as being either in support or opposition? Otherwise, we risk classifying one position as "news" and the other as only "opinion."

MSTCrow 07:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused