Jump to content

Talk:Code Pink

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk page archives

[edit]

Talk:Code Pink/Archive 1

We don't need this

[edit]

I hesitate to edit controversial articles, but this singular sentence strikes me as unnecessary. "Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) banged his gavel and stated they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." Very "talky" without really adding anything. Discuss. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then fix it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, gives some character to the text. I'm not saying who wrote it though. <walks away whistling> DanielM (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has provided objections I have edited the portions I take issue with, I hope anyone who feels the need to revert will provide an explanation here so we can discuss, I believe I have provided ample time for objections already but I am always willing to listen. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads more neutrally now, so I'm satisfied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads antiseptically and vague now and conveys much less to the reader about what the scene was like. You can read it now and have no idea that he banged his gavel and said he would prosecute them fully. It's not something though that I was planning to go back and forth about. I am however curious as to in what sense you found it other than neutral, SchuminWeb. DanielM (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't even as much a neutrality issue as what I felt to be an improvement of the way the article read. The previous description was simply too narrative and unnecessary. The same information is still conveyed without appearing to be a line from a trashy crime novel. Inseeisyou (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, true life must resemble a trashy crime novel then, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aAU76bqL4Y DanielM (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice in the video link you posted he doesn't state "to the fullest extent of the law" as the previous version mentioned. He actually references the specific law in which they are in violation of. "To the fullest extent of the law" was just a little "color" thrown in, refer back to my statement about trashy crime novels. Inseeisyou (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He said "under the law" and indeed banged his gavel. You're picking nits. But I already said I wasn't going to quarrel with your antiseptic and vague language that conveys little to Wikipedia readers about the scene. DanielM (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2008(UTC)
Mentioning the specific law someone is in violation of, and telling them they will be prosecuted under the law is not synonymous with being prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law" (conjuring up a "throw the book" at them mentality). Correcting a falsely attributed quote in an encyclopedia article none the less is hardly picking nits. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase wasn't in quotations, so there was no "falsely attributed quote," 220.70.250.246. We can disagree about the force of Skelton's comments, to me it seemed very strong. That part could have been phrased better, and sure, more specifically supported by the reference, but it wasn't inaccurate IMO. DanielM (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

The name of this article should be changed. "CODEPINK," according to their official website ( http://codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=3 ) is all one word and all caps. "Code Pink" should re-direct to "CODEPINK" to avoid confusion. Are there any objections? Spiderjeru (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm goign to object per WP:COMMONNAME. Most people, including most reliable sources, refer to the organization as "Code Pink", as two words and in mixed case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez debate as criticism?

[edit]

Why is the section about the interview by Tucker Carlson under section Criticism? I am sure that every action by Code Pink and every one of their positions has been criticized by someone. Yet we don't put (say) the peace march in San Francisco under Criticism. Why is the Chavez debate any different? Even more so, since Medea Benjamin gave a very good reply to Carlson explaining the facts. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and Marxist?

[edit]

An editor twice inserted some text that suggested Code Pink was anti-globalization and Marxist and "eco-feminist." I took out those suggestions, but thought I would ask to see if anybody was familiar with reliable sources that actually support these ideas? Don't want to edit war, but I just am not seeing that these statements are substantiated. DanielM (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the organization is, though various members may certainly be. Without a citation, I'm yanking it every time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across this organisation only just now. By and large, and with very few exceptions or possibly even none, all individuals and organisations who are not pro-war will be branded Marxist, communist, leftie or some such like. Doesn't matter which shade of grey they are. Let it stand because that side who wishes to smear anti-war and anti-militarism entities are very active and well funded. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:EDDA:C851:91DB:24FC (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Code Pink and Hamas

[edit]

This article section was sourced with a single link to a conservative blog. That doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. The blog had a broken link for its most controversial statement. The other links didn't back up its claim that Code Pink works with Hamas. As I could not verify the claim that Code Pink works with Hamas, I removed it. Hollyharwood (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section says nothing about working with Hamas. Code Pink leadership actively cooperated with the Hamas government in Gaza.ref 1 acts as a secondary source to reminder. Andrew Breitbart is a prominent and notable journalist and remainder is mostly unknown progressive/activist webblog. More refs to support content - glick, examiner, and j weekly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is where the article goes on a tangent about Hamas. We have a Wikilink to an article that provides a full discussion of Hamas (at Hamas). That becomes POV-pushing by going off on the tangent. I've restored an earlier version that removes the tangent and uses a more neutral section title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Tangent? The current section is more than consistent with NPOV policy. The original section contained explicit quotations and commentary from mainstream sources. An editor decided to gut secondary sources and quote direct statements from Code Pink leadership. The issue is that Code Pink contacted Hamas officials. Hamas - a registered terrorist organization complicit in dozens of suicide bombings against civilians. Reliable sources have confirmed the notability of the story, and editors can't remove cited ocntent because they think it portrays Code Pink in a non-peaceful manner. The sources I provided above further illustrates the relationship between Hamas and Code Pink representatives, some of whom express solidarity with Hamas and their narrative towards Israel. So I suggest you restore my NPOV edit for now until you can find a shred of policy to support your revert. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Hamas is responsible for numerous suicide bombings against Israel civilians and is classified as a terrorist group by the United States, Canada, and the European Union" directly have to do with Code Pink? Considering that we have an entire Wikipedia article about Hamas, this is unnecessary, because it has nothing to do with Code Pink, and in fact, is POV in its presentation. Therefore, I will not be reverting. I'm not concerned about how Code Pink is portrayed. I'm saying that this is not the place to discuss Hamas beyond how it relates to Code Pink, which is the subject of this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the concept of POV? Stating Hamas' political status is not POV, it is a true statement. And anyways, that is a single sentence, you and another editor removed the entire section and have yet to explain the edit in question. Claims of "POV" are insufficient. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV is more than simply the way something is worded, but it also can extend to inclusion of extraneous facts in an attempt to sway the reader's opinion. Yes, Hamas is generally regarded as a terrorist group. In an article about Hamas, that would be perfectly NPOV. In an article about Code Pink where Hamas provided security, it is POV, akin to the "pals around with terrorists" comment from 2008. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, so why gut two whole perfectly-cited paragraphs and replace it with a poorly written synthesized cherry-picked quotations from a primary source? Secondary sources have drawn explicit parallels between Hamas philosophy and Code Pink policy vis-vis Israel and ME peace. We can't deny the voice because some editors don't want to damage the rosy image of code pink. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha - "rosy" describing Code Pink (what with pink and pink and all). Seriously, though, it also makes the section into a coatrack for discussion about Hamas - not a good thing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look Schum, the original edits contained secondary sources to back up the claims behind Hamas/Code Pink relations. There really is no justification to remove sources under amibigious cries of "POV" or "coatrack." RS have made a case involving Hamas, if you think the subject of Hamas is overly represented then fine that can be discussed but gutting 2 whole paraphs and replacing with this kind of garbage is simply absurd. So unless you can find a shred of policy to support removing cited content I think it is only fair to restore part of the original NPOV edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already thrown the NPOV policy at you, but since you won't listen, I have nothing else to add. However, as it has already been explained to you why NPOV is violated in this specific context, further attempts at restoring this content may be viewed as disruptive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing the "NPOV policy" is not persuasive. There is nothing inherently POV about the original edit. You have yet to dispute the half a dozen secondary sources provided above, in fact you haven't challenged the original edit outside of criticism of the one sentence description of Hamas at the end of the paragraph. Removing cited content without sufficient reasoning is disruptive. So please cite a shred of policy supporting the current copypast. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack article

[edit]

This was a classic attack article.

I've been removing stuff but do please feel free to dig in the history and restore valuable stuff. What I want to do is get away from the "This is <random group>...Criticism<whole load of people saying how shitty they feel about group>" pattern. If you look at the current version of Eagle Forum, here is what it says about criticism. That's not a lot, and even that worries me because really all the "critics" are saying is that they're very successful in presenting themselves as dominionists. That isn't criticism, and whenever the commentators are expressing mainstream views we should say so and not just lump the whole "reality" thing as criticism. --TS 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case for obstinacy or reverting saying "sigh". We must discuss. Please join the discussion. I've waited for more than seven days now. That's more than enough. --TS 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what part of the article bothers you - specifically? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my edit summaries, specifically:
Note also that at the beginning of my edits the article contained 25,372 bytes and at the end of those edits it contained 19,825 bytes. Yes, some 20% of the article was given over to random criticism of the organization. Most or all of that had been inside a specific section labeled "criticism".
Much of the sourcing here was appalling. CNS, really. One reasonably mainstream source (Stars and Stripes) doesn't even mention Code Pink. [1]. So where is the source for the criticism? Israelis are certainly entitled to say that they disagree with Code Pink, but obviously this isn't a matter where one would expect Code Pink and the government of Israel to see eye to eye. The Tucker Carlson thing is interesting and shows Code Pink in an interesting light, but it sounds like a "set piece". On Capitol Blue, the question of why their reporter's opinion should be held up as significant is a little puzzling. Fuck em. The Reuters thing seems to be some people telling Reuters they disagreed with their coverage. Right. --TS 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaints are too vague to take seriously. What specific policy applies to your issues? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm charged into this article and removed a whole heap of stuff. I was ignored so I did it again. I hope that's enough to get some attention, and if it isn't enough there are established ways of dealing with this, so I won't be jumping in and editing this article again. I still think it needs to be fixed, though. One thing that bothers me is that the article seems to be written mostly from press releases by the organization itself, and what little other stuff exists seems to be rather oblique. How prominent is this organization? If I typed "Code Pink" into Google News or something would I get very little worth talking about? --TS 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code Pink has organized more than seven delegations to Gaza. Critics have since accused Code Pink of working "closely with terrorist organizations and states sponsors of terrorism" in Gaza and Iran.[41] Prior to the Gaza Freedom March, Code Pink endorsed the “Cairo Declaration to End Israeli Apartheid", which calls for comprehensive boycott of Israel.[42] During the Gaza Freedom March, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin coordinated the organization's stay with the Hamas government. Members resided in the Commodore, a Hamas-owned hotel in Gaza City. Code Pink activist Poya Pakzad described the Commodore Hotel as the "the nicest hotel I've ever stayed at, in my life." Hamas security officials accompanied activists as they visited Palestinian homes and Gaza-based NGOs.[43] [44] Prior to the march, Benjamin said the Hamas government had "pledged to ensure our safety."[45] However, Code Pink leaders claimed Hamas had hijacked the initiative from the onset after imposing prohibitions on the organizations movements around Gaza. Amira Hass referred to the event as "an opportunity for Hamas cabinet ministers to get decent media coverage in the company of Western demonstrators."[44]

Where is the "attack"? All I see are facts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that I see nothing much that is verifiable. The sources are a website run by Andrew Breitbart, a website run by San Francisco-based associates of a left wing organization called Indymedia, a webaite apparently run by an individual called "Caroline Gillick", and a Haaretz (<-- real news source) article that refers to Code Pink in passing. And, finally, an article from one of these ubiquitous "local newspaper" websites called "thereminder.com", that appears to have been written from a press release.
We're writing an encyclopedia. Are we really reduced to recycling these meager scraps? --TS 03:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand the concept of primary sources and secondary sources. The original Reminder cite hosted a direct interview by Code Pink representatives. I don't know know where you're getting "indymedia" but it isn't cited in the paragraph. All the information is accurately cited and I don't see any verifiability issues. I suggest you restore the edit until you can find a more compelling reason to remove it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please work with Tony and other interested people to achieve consensus on these points rather than being obstinate. We need to work together here. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if Tony finds a legitimate reason to delete cited material then we can find a way to work with each other. I've devoted more than enough time explaining the edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And still being obstinate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Tony needs to find some wikipedia policy to support his claims. Coming in and accusing editors of turning the article into an attack piece is a serious charge that should be backed up with facts. If anyone is being obstinate it is editors who inject their own philosophies to edit rather than guidelines. So do you two have any thing of substance to offer or are you just here to cheer lead? Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that Sherilyn69 speaks for me (I'm sure you don't, but I get the impression Sherilyn69 thinks she does).

I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, but the sheer imbalance of this piece as I found it makes it into an attack article. I've removed or modified several sections and have given my reasons for the removal. The underlying policy, in case it isn't clear, is Neutral point of view, though as usual Verifiability is also involved. --TS 20:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples please? What is non-verifiable? NPOV does not mean banning content you don't like it. The info is supported by primary sources, including Cold Pink's own leadership, and reliable sources. So citing general policies without serious qualifications is not enough to keep the edits out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already enumerated the examples above, with the reasons for each removal. I don't see any good reason for repeating them. --TS 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples prove nothing. The edit is supported by reliable, third party and secondary sources. I've responded to your examples quite thoroughly. I will restore the cited edits soon unless you can find a compelling reason to keep them out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Timeline"

[edit]

WP:TIMEL describes a timeline as, "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it." The "timeline" in this article seems to be comrised of a random collection of little niggles and minor publicity stunts which are non-newsworthy and which not only are not important enough to be on Wikipedia, but don't fit the definition or purpose of a timeline either. 108.14.202.100 (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those events are cited to news stories and so by definition are newsworthy. IMO the section is interesting and useful as to what Pink is up to in terms of its latest civil disobedience. It might be misnamed as "timeline," that much may be true. "Notable events" might be better. DanielM (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following myself up a moment later. I think "timeline" is an okay title for that. The description you quoted above is a narrow description that doesn't represent the variety of timelines used at Wikipedia and elsewhere. It is not any kind of timeline "rule" that I can tell. DanielM (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Timeline" may not be the best section head; maybe "chronological list of protests" would be better? I've edited this article a couple of times, and it strikes me that it contains a VERY VERY VERY long list of every little action that the group has undertaken. This list probably should be pruned, but I'll have to muster up the time and energy -- or hopefully someone else will do the job. After all, Code Pink hardly has the historical importance of, say, the Bolsheviks in 1917! 20:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be listed in far-left politics?

[edit]

I'm not asking this page to be listed as a Communist organization, but I get the feeling that Code Pink should be listed as a "Far-Left Politics" article. The reason that the group sounds just that, at least that's how the media portrays them.

I don't think it should. The far-left like the far-right advocate for violent measures to be taken to obtain their political goals. That means Code Pink is not far-left. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrest" attempts

[edit]

Several of bullets in the Activities section mention attempts to arrest political figures. Is this really an accurate description? It seems like inaccurately dramatic language. First, Code Pink is not a law enforcement organization and cannot arrest anyone. They would just be kidnapping more or less. Second, I don't see evidence that Code Pink actually plans to take anyone into custody against their will and nobody appears to act as if that is their aim. If they were actually attempting to kidnap people, surely the police response would be more serious than ejecting them from a venue. I notice a Guardian article describing their actions as waving handcuffs, and this seems more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.74.75 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

infobox Edit - 17th Jan, 2017

[edit]

I changed the infobox - 'Region served' to - 'Regions Active' - 'Served' denotes a form of public service generally in an official capacity - Which can be argued for politically perhaps (A Representative Democratic Republic relies upon citizen Government, a politically active citizenry), but is inconsistent with Wikipedia's treatment of other such pages, and by common sense is objectionable because the form of action usually taken by Code Pink activists cannot truly be termed service I imagine by any strict use of the term.

I also made note that this group was formed by a group of Californian women in 2002 and is most often active there.

This edit made the concerned portions hidden, which is not ideal and I don't know why, but this is better than how it was, fix it if you know how.

-Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Code Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Protest during Plame hearing" section

[edit]

This section depended on disjointed reporting appearing on CNN. The transcript's reliability was called into question by CNN itself which provided the following qualification:

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

where it had been posted. It is heavily larded with elipses, including within the quoted remark, and transcription errors such as the words "incite" (instead of what was clearly from its context meant to have been intended to be "indict,)" and "resigned" instead of "reigned." The second source was an opinion piece at the Capitol Hill Blue blog rather than factual reporting with editorial control on a site that appears to be largely a collection of goofy clickbait. The appearance of the individual at the 2007 Plame hearing may have been more an expression of individual exhibitionism from a person with possible serious, long term mental problems, rather than an organizational position statement. Activist (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing

[edit]

JTA: "Code Pink is a left-wing advocacy group critical of U.S. foreign policy, including its support of Israel."

The Guardian: "It has also broadened its interests to pro-green policies, action in support of Palestinian civil rights and other largely left-wing issues around the world."

I can find other sources supporting the label, if you want. On the other hand, "progressive" is not mentioned anywhere, just pure original research.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that I wanted any sources. I was content to leave it as you had reverted it. However, I came back to this Talk page because I left a comment yesterday and discovered a moment ago that you weren't satisfied, perhaps with simply removing the term "progressive" and replacing it with "left wing" that you favored, and felt a need to further justify it. So, I Googled the words "Code Pink," and "progressive." The first hit I got was from the "right wing" Washington Examiner :-)

A Washington judge on Friday threw out the conviction of a protester who was arrested after laughing during Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Senate confirmation hearing in January. Desiree Fairooz, 61, was attending the hearing with other members of the progressive activist group Code Pink when she laughed loudly after Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said that Sessions' record of "treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented."

So, let me suggest this. How about you and I drop both modifiers and we leave it simply as "an NGO" and you can submit it to see if there is a consensus of other editors favoring one term or the other, or none at all? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-throws-out-conviction-for-code-pink-activist-arrested-after-laughing-during-jeff-sessions-confirmation/article/2628748 Lastly, here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article: Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[7] The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century,[citation needed] usually with disparaging intent, and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views. 04:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Which country(ies) is Code Pink from?

[edit]

Because Code Pink's expressed mission is about opposing the actions of a specific country, it matters whether the organization is from or was founded by people principally from that country or a different one. I think the opening paragraph should say flat-out what country Code Pink is from or else say that it is not from any specific country. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for China

[edit]

The article contains a section on China which is mainly about Jodie Evans' views on China. I recently rewrote the following sentence which contained synthesis and did not accurately reflect the source:

After her marriage to Singham in 2017, who provided 25% of the organization's funding since then, she has been a strong supporter of China.

The sentence was based on four separate sources in the NYT. These are:

Until a few years ago, she readily criticized China’s authoritarian government. “We demand China stop brutal repression of their women’s human rights defenders,” she wrote on Twitter in 2015.
In 2017, Mr. Singham married Jodie Evans, a former Democratic political adviser and the co-founder of Code Pink.
Since 2017, about a quarter of Code Pink’s donations — more than $1.4 million — have come from two groups linked to Mr. Singham,
Ms. Evans now stridently supports China. She casts it as a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war.

The problems as I see them are:

The NYT does not say Singham provided 25% of the organization's since 2017. It says the funding is from groups connected to him.
The NYT does not say Evans has been a strong supporter of China since her marriage. It does not directly connect her marriage to what it describes as a change in her attitude. It says she "now stridently supports China", i.e. in 2023.

I have rewritten the sentence by breaking it into separate parts as contained in the source. Burrobert (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

[edit]

Pinging @Professor Penguino. I made some changes to your recent revision and am happy to ping you as requested. I think it's fine to change it away from "support," but "coverage" seems not quite right as the alternative. I have further revised it to "political positions regarding" JArthur1984 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate it. And thanks for pinging. Best regards, Professor Penguino (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you made definitely work better. I am much obliged! Professor Penguino (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS exist beyond the NYT

[edit]

@Avatar317 I have reverted your edit which incorrectly claims that NYT is RS whereas the sources I used are not.

  1. Al Jazeera and The Hindu are WP:RSP.
  2. A statement by Singham in The Hindu is not an opinion article, but is a direct call out of journalistic failures on NYT's part by the person directly affected. I recommend that you reflect on what it means when a Newspaper of Record publishes a statement with no additional clarification or comment from their editor.
  3. The very first line of WP:BLP says Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.
  4. The Nation is another WP:RSP that has criticized NYT's report.

Please get consensus here instead of edit warring.

I encourage you to read the sources provided next time. I also recommend that you look at what WP:RSP is not. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the two RS's you list (Al Jazeera and the Nation) mention "Code Pink", so those sources are not relevant to THIS article, and the Hindu source is SINGHAM's OPINION, not usable for anything other than his opinion. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, there is an inordinate amount of Singham focus in this article. Use of the criticized NYT piece invites the need to include responses, especially given the nature of BLP. We certainly can't have the criticized NYT article in the lead without responses. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_Pink&oldid=1250943219"