Talk:Cindy Sheehan urges Canada to welcome U.S. deserters

NPOV

This article needs some npov before publishing but there was none in this one source. Please help find some related npov before publishing. Neutralizer 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree, however you *just* published it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, think the article is fine. It's doesn't ascribe any truth to her claims but simply relates the events and includes some quotes. We could insert something, if anything is available, from those who disagree with Mrs. Sheehan, but I don't think it's really necessary. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am new at this and am not sure this is where I should post my opinion, well, here goes. I don't agree with Ms. Sheehan on many issues. Canada is committed to helping Afghanistan, the US cannot just walk away from the mess it made in Iraq. However, US deserters are valid refugees to my country. They do not agree with their governments policies and how they are pursuing the war in Iraq. Many of these individuals are of strong moral character and will make excellent new Canadians. - Patrick Fitzgerald of Montreal.

Title

MrM made a title change 2 days after publishing. I have tried to improve the title as MrM's was quite demeaning,I think, as MrM would not approve of Bush's speeches as being labeled a "pro-war tour". I actually think the original title was perfect. Neutralizer 12:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm reverting your move. She is self-proclaimed anti-war, and she is campaigning against the war. She wasn't in the country only to pledge support for the deserters, and your headline is terrible because it nitpicks at one minor part of the article and puts it as the main focus in the headline - which it isn't. This sort of behavior is common from you, so I expect nothing less than trying to promote certain individuals or make a political statement. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just would like to remind mrm in a friendly manner that labeling people (this sort of behavior is common for you) really doesn't help anything (as well as being unnesesary) and just makes people defensive. Defensive people don't work well together towards a solution. Remember WN:E. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Neutralizes title better. That one also imply the meaning of the on Mrm prefer. I suggest we change back to Neutralizers. international 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

After loccking at sources I insist and revert.international 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Two people isn't a consensus. We've been through this before. Revert. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One person is half the concensus of 2, it seems to me. Neutralizer 00:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One nor two people is consensus. Obviously, you've lost your dictionary. Try wiktionary. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If theres no concensuss, on an issue like this, don't we ussually go with majority? (Not arguing for either title, just what I think) [[user:ba

wolff|Bawolff]] ☺☻ 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I perfere the second one (MrM's) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brain New Zealand on this one. Jason Safoutin 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree to the term "pro-war tour" when Bush goes around the US speaking in favour of the Iraq War? Neutralizer 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

She self-claims she is against the war, and that her campaign is against the wars. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Retaliatory Tag?

MrM, the article has been published 3 days. You can not tag it now because you want a certain title. Neutralizer 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

note; 64.229.185.62 is me; got logged out somehow. Neutralizer 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

titles of the sources and first line

1, U.S. activist pressures Canada Woman who camped at Bush's ranch urges Ottawa to admit deserters and criticizes Afghan mission

2nd down...

3, Let them in Anti-war mom urges Canada to grant sanctuary to U.S. deserters

4, Accept war deserters, 'Peace Mom' pleads American anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wants the Canadian government to grant sanctuary to U.S. army deserters.

Cant see any problem with original title, Mrm:s suggestion is little condescending. We may try that on something President Bush do in future and see what happen. I conclude That mrm:s waring is based on povpushing. international 08:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The original title was not bad. FellowWikiNews 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Title suggestion

MrM apparently feels that the title should cover the Afghanistan mission concern as well as the deserter concern. He also suggests the "tour" word. What about this as a compromise;

Sheehan tours Canada in support of U.S. deserters and against Afghan coalition

Also, nobody ever said what was wrong with the original title;

Cindy Sheehan takes fight into Canada ? Neutralizer 11:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, no - that is a horrendous title. There is only one main focus here: it is that she was visiting Canada on a campaign that was directed against the wars. And, "fight" is sensationalizing her campaign. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• MrM; which title is "horrendous"? THere are 2 suggestions; do you have a compromise suggestion? Neutralizer 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MrM does not like ether. I don't think he does. I will try to come up with another sugesstion. FellowWikiNews 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Cindy Sheehan takes flight into Canada? Note: This is not my only suggestion. I will try to come up with more. FellowWikiNews 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• That is no different than the original, to which I opposed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the original title. WikiNews 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)