Talk:Code Pink/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Scooter Libby

In the criticisms section it states that Lewis Libby was convicted of violating the Intelegence Identities Protection act. This is inaccurate. Lewis Libby was convicted of purjury, no one has been convicted of violation the Intelegence Identities Protection act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected Scooter's charges in this section with actual covictions taken from the Libby page. My punctiation may be a little off. If anyone is in one of those anal type moods, please examine. Thanks. (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC) DLM

Its not the punctiation, its the speelingg.And that's the truth; I don't want to purjure my self. Perhaps you were progressively educated?


The criticism section includes only pro-war, right-wing sources (Michelle Malkin and, arguably biased Fox News). Unless someone has better sources, I will remove the criticism. --Tjss 04:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Would not criticism of an anti-war left-wing group come mostly from such sources? You seem to be saying that pro-war, right-wing sources are bad as such, and have no place in any discussion. If that is wrong, please give me any source of that type you would find acceptable.

Yeah! Right! Don't bother Codepink is actively monitoring this page. And they would remove or "modify" the criticism in the sprit of intolrence so much displayed on their website and elsewhere. Should somebody not add what [zombietimes] has to show about Codepink? It is well documented, critical of Codepink, and will survive Wikipedia's criteria.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:58, 14 March 2008
Actually, you are incorrect. The sources are not Fox News or Michell Malkin nor are they right wing or pro war. The insight is directly from government sources and mainstream media. The sources are a result of thorough investigation and are legitimate. In fact, the facts presented are more accurate than the white-washed propaganda and complete regurgitation of "facts" from the Code Pink website. Try doing a bit more research before edititing anything based on a knee jerk reaction and screaming "FOX NEWS". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Wow - this page is kind of a mess. You have hundreds of lines of wonderful things about the group, then a few lines of criticism. It seems like there should be more criticism content for this particular group of moonbats. (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox news is probably the least biased news channel. We dont scream its irrelevant just because its on CNN. -- (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fox news is probably the least biased news channel."What planet are you living on? Fox is nothing but a right-wing propaganda machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unless someone has better sources, I will remove the criticism". Yes, do remove any criticism. No point in trying to bring any semblance of balance to this pathetic propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

War Toys

What are war toys?

-DrAlbertHofmann —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

As I interpret it, "war toys" seem like military-themed toys for children. Whether this is what's intended or not, I don't know, but that's how I take it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

i.e. G.I Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Precisely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And, especially, toy weapons. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Code Pink

People are entitled to be anti-Code Pink. But they are reminded that this is an encyclopedia. Additions must be cited. Those citations must be to reputable sources. The sources cited must reflect what the edit says: the users of this website are not stupid. To the anon who has a POV to push about this article: please stop. Your addtions are bordering on vandalism. Your citations are inaccurate. Your comments - here and only here - are welcome, but please keep your personal views out of the article. This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. ЯEDVERS 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, however, there is no POV to push. Funny you should mention this given the "facts" that appear on this listing are nothing more than a regurgitation from the Code Pink website and or from someone who works for the organization. Perhaps you can provide some additional guidance as to sourcing, what I've posted is well-known in many circles, including documents retrieved via the Freedom of Information Act. I look forward to your comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Well, I've tried to tell you about our guidelines and rules here at Wikipedia, but I'm happy to try to stress them again.
You should start by reading the easy guide to Wikipedia's ways: Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. Then look at The five pillars of Wikipedia. That'll give you a basic grounding in what we're doing here at Wikipedia and why.
Now, for this article itself, there are a couple of policy pages you need to read. I've linked them for you before, but I'll provide the links again. So, the best place to start is WP:NPOV - our requirement that all entries to our encyclopedia are made from a neutral point of view. That means not spinning or twisting the words of sources, not saying what you or others think or feel. Just the facts, ma'am.
We require entries in this encyclopedia to be fully sourced. So you need to read WP:CITE for an explanation of what that means. Sources can be from various places and linked in various ways, but they must be relaible, so read WP:RS - our guide to what is and isn't a reliable source.
It's great that you've done so much research into Code Pink, asking people what they think and getting FoIA documents, but (and you knew one was coming!) we don't allow original research. You can read about this policy at WP:OR. All your conversations and FoIA documents are useless here, as we're not equipped (and don't want to be) for double-checking them. So you need to leave them at the door.
So, about contributing to this article. Well, there are a couple of things you can do. The first is to log-in - I know you have a sleeper account, so you could use that. Alternatively, just register for a new account (top right of the screen) - it's free, it's easy and above all it makes communication much easier. And we're all about communication here!
Then, think about why you want to write. Do you want to increase the sum of knowledge available for free to the human race? Or do you want to expose Code Pink and its members as a bunch of commie lesbian revolutionaries? If it's the the former - great! If it's the latter - ooh, sorry, but you've come to the wrong place. But there are plenty of other free places that you can print such stuff (I can email you a list if you like).
If it's the increasing-the-sum option, then you'll need to check a couple of things: is what you're writing (a) from a neutral point of view; (b) sourced, cited and easily checked by readers and your fellow editors; (c) not libellous.
It is? Great! Then, when the protection is lifted tomorrow, add it to the article. It will be subject to being rewritten, double-checked, mercilessly edited and even removed in part or as a whole by your fellow editors, but the closer it sticks to the rules I've linked for you above, the more stuff that will stay.
What if it isn't? Ooh, that's a shame. It'll be removed immediately by someone, they'll shout me, and I'll lock the article again for 24 hours. I'll also increase the warning level on your talk page by one - three strikes and, well, you know the rest.
So, have a read of the links above, rewrite what you want to say to be neutral with clear and reliable sources that are cited and with text that agrees with the source. Then either post it below today, or wait for ther block to expire and post it then. But note what I've said about our rules.
And also please note that you are not being singled out; you are not the victim of a rogue admin; you are not having to jump through hoops that others are not. You are simply being asked to follow the rules that Wikipedia's editors have decided upon jointly over 7 years.
I'll look forward to your contribution! ЯEDVERS 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that; one quibble, and one disagreement. The quibble: it's only about 5-1/2 years, not 7, unless you are counting Nupedia. The disagreement: nothing wrong with FOIA documents in general; I haven't been following in this closely enough to speak of the particular ones. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Still, better to talk first and act later. But now I've acted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We welcome articles on all subjects, from contributors with many views. We also consider that all views are correct, but that our articles must represent all views or none - preferably none.

This article is now semi-protected. This is for 24 hours - I'll lift the protection tomorrow. But the anon with the POV to push: please don't. I've protected this article rather than block you again. You are welcome to edit at Wikipedia constructively. You obviously have knowledge that Wikipedia would like to print and the world would like to read. But your personal views - some of which seem to be bordering on libel - really are unwelcome here. So leave them at the door.

I'm sorry this disadvantages newer editors. Please post your changes below here and I will happily implement them for you. Thanks. ЯEDVERS 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I've had to resort to protecting this article - full, not semi - for another 24 hours. Material is being added to it which is unsourced and appears to be attacking the subject. The material breaks several Wikipedia rules - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP. Therefore I'd like another attempt at a 24-hour cooling off period and I'll try, again, to reason with the anon adding this material.

Thanks for your understanding and I apologise for the inconvenience. ЯEDVERS 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ActiveSelective 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


The neutrality of ths listing needs to be reviewed. It is merely a regurgitation of Code Pink's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Protection lifted

Protection of this article has been lifted. Before adding or subtracting anything, editors are requested to make themselves aware of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and sources. These are detail in a pervious message from me above. Thank you. ЯEDVERS 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Why are Code Pink's more radical ideas and events not mentioned in the wikipedia article? They stormed Donald Rumsfeld's house, horned in on gas stations to block sales of gasoline, went to Cuba and Venezuela to offer words of support and encouragement for their leaders, went to Iraq to demand peace and influence policy overseas. All these are in direct conflict with the logan act, which is hardly enforced these days but is still around nonetheless.

This article makes Code Pink look like just a run of the mill group of anti-war folks that are simply against war, but in reality it seems they are much more of a cult of lunatics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Do you have citations for this? - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


There is an obvious group of people with an agenda floating about on this wikipedia page. Code-Pink certainly has their critics, and when they are mentioned those names vanish. Many other pages, especially in regards to any American republican or someone with a shred of conservative value, include a long list of critics. It seems as if the below comment by Tjss is not sufficient in removing the critics to me. Code pink is listed as critics of the war in Iraq, yet nobody can list anyone with an opposing view to Code-Pink because OBVIOUSLY they must be conservative if they do so. It is ridiculous. Code pink holds more protests outside of FOX NEWS than anywhere for "war toys" mentioned in the article. Look at the wikipedia listing for fox news and notice Robert Greenwald's book mentioned. Is Robert Greenwald not a liberal who writes for The liberal online website The Huffington Post? There are double standards. This is a joke folks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Again, if you have citations for this, put it in the article with citations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More like Code Pinko. (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a forum for discussing your political beliefs. Please refrain from using it as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The more things change, the less they are this wiki article

Now the article reads even MORE like the code pink website. All criticism of the group and its actions are gone, and plenty of it is on the internet. Sources linked, still edits are removed. This wiki article shows how wikipedia can ignore truths and reality from a topic. Code Pink has quite a few prominant folks in opposition to the group and they act in ways that look terrible to an average person. Just because it is fact and doesn't look good doesn't mean it should be removed from the article. I think someone is "watching their back". If you belong to codepink or support their views, there is something called a conflict of interest and you need to get your damn hands away from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamegrid (talkcontribs)

Given that Medea Benjamin edited, there is literally no doubt that some of the changes came from within the organization. You should feel free to re-add any well-sourced criticism. On the other hand, speaking for a moment as an administrator, you should not feel free to tell a user to "get your damn hands away from" an article. Please see WP:CIVIL. - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an example of Wikipedia at its worst. It is laughable that all critism has been removed due to the fact that it was from "right-wing" sources. HALF of the references are directly from the Code Pink website, and the interview which is referenced from Fox News gleans only the statement made by a Code Pink representative and ignores a healthy does of critism and tough questions asked later in the article. Any source which disagrees with Code Pink's view and activities can be easily labled as "Right Wing" and dismissed. I would counter that all references currently cited are "Left Wing". I'm sure someone thought themselves very clever citing Fox News, but that was only a quote from an interview, and as I stated only a Code Pink member's comments were referenced. Discouraging. I've tried brining a little of the other view to the article by expanding on the entire Hannity and Colmes article, all my material is straight from the article which was already referenced. Let's see how long it stays now that it's not just a cherrypick of one Code Pink member's quote. Clearly it is anti-Code Pink, however critism clearly exists for Code Pink and it deserves some mention.Inseeisyou 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a Poor Article

Someone want to explain to me how this article is neutral? How this group has no criticisms? It looks like a fan just read their website and re-wrote it here. This is the saddest excuse of neutrality I have ever seen. Where's the NPOV when you need it? I'm keeping watch of this page from here on out. All vandalism will be reported. That includes removing criticisms, and facts that oppose and support the group. This group is more than anti-war. They're anti-military, and the most invasive group out there. I dare anyone and everyone who believes there are criticisms missing to search all news publications for Code Pink. If there is one thing that vandals cannot avoid (by vandals I mean anyone overstepping NPOV to protect the group) it's references to the facts. AJFederation 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than be belligerent toward other editors, you find some well-sourced criticism that is not simply from people radically opposed to their politics (the latter being no more interesting than the fact that, for example, Ted Kennedy has bad things to say about the Republican Party). - Jmabel | Talk 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms are Deleted

I tried to add criticism about Medea Benjamin's trip to visit with Hugo Chavez and it was deleted. All were deleted before I even a had chance to finish, but I am assuming that there is no political agenda behind the deletions because I had not entered the sources when it was deleted. I have revamped the section detailing the support Medea Benjamin, and her group Global Exchange, and Cindy Sheehan have publicly given to Hugo Chavez. I will source these sections to satisfy those who believe that the criticism section is light. I am not sure that there is an agenda on this page. If you want to add criticism please do so and add sources supporting them as I have and we will see if they stay.

Don't know who wrote the immediately above because it is unsigned. Editor "WYATTKOPP" did a vast amount of very recent edits on the above. To sign your comments type "~" four times at the end. The "criticisms" section (with subsections) is larger than any other section, unbalances the article terribly, and is weighted heavily by criticism of individual members, not the group. Further this criticism of individual members makes use of a guilt-by-association argument, to paraphrase it: "Hugo Chavez is bad, the member likes Hugo Chavez, therefore the member is bad." This is an association fallacy. If the criticism were legitimate, I'd say move it to the articles of the individual members, but WP:BLP specifically warns editors against the use of guilt by association arguments. I noticed that the statement upfront "Most notably, Code Pink's three highest profile members, Medea Benjamin, Jodi Evans and Cindy Sheehan visited Hugo Chavez in January 2006" is wholly unsupported by the reference following it (a YouTube video of an excerpt of Cindy Sheehan interview), so I think there are sourcing problems as well. In my opinion all or almost all of this Chavez/Venezuela guilt-by-association polemic should be deleted. If you want to distill it down to a single short well-supported paragraph and somehow reduce the guilt-by-association of it, maybe that could withstand scrutiny better. DanielM (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not some associational fallacy. There are photos of their meeting with Chavez where they are all wearing pink and Code Pink t-shirts. In Benjamin's interview with Tucker Carlson she is introduced as Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. I suppose an organization in your logic has nothing to do with the actions of its members. We should take out the stuff about Des Fairooz approching Condi Rice to because that was just her own action and not Code Pink itself. I don't think so....

Critic about Hugo Chavez

Wouldn't it be better to move the criticisms about the venezuelan President to "his" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Critic about Hugo Chavez

If it is all an associational fallacy, tell me why Code Pink details the meeting on its own blog and why it has articles by Medea Benjamin on Hugo Chavez and why their website links to and has several references to Global Exchange? If you want this to be a PR piece for Code Pink say so.... Someone should upload the photo of the three Code Pink leaders hugging Chavez because that would help the criticism section look better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, it is just a question, have they some references (in their homepage) to the claims in the article, that Mr. Chavez was a close friend of Mr. Hussein, or that Mr. Chavez seems to support the Taliban of Afghanistan? Wouldn't it be better to put that in Chavez' article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that if you look at editorials on Code Pink the greatest discussion is of the inconsistent views of its leadership and the group's antiwar positions. This is a totally legitimate criticism. A lot of people would even go further and say that Code Pink is a front for an anti-American agenda and that is really not so much anti-war as it is anti-United States. You have to understand that Code Pink goes around saying Impeach Bush and accusing Bush of human rights violations and yet its leaders have wholly embraced Hugo Chavez and his government. I suggest you do a search for Code Pink & Hugo Chavez and you will see there are a lot of criticisms out there on this issue. At least the editor of the article who added that put legitimate sources instead of the editorials. However, this is the big and significant criticism of Code Pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, a few token paragraphs in the criticism section does not take away from the fact that this is till a public relations piece for Code Pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone argue that this is now a PR sheet for Code Pink. I added well sourced material which points to the SINGLE GREATEST criticism of Code Pink which is that as a group its values are inconsistent because it levels criticism at the Bush administration's war on terror and domestic anti-terror policies while at the same time the people who ARE the face of Code Pink embrace leaders like Hugo Chavez. Moreover, I put legitimate source instead of conservative editorials to back it up which has been one of the big stumbling blocks in the past on this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article had plenty of criticism even before the association-fallacy-based polemic (they like Chavez! they like SADDAM!) was inserted. Even the headers for the Chavez section demonstrate textbook violation of WP:NPOV: "Support of Venezuelan Dictator is Inconsistent With Proclaimed Values... Support of Venezuelan Crackdown on Free Expression... Protests are Insensitive and in Poor Taste." Wow, we're even going to assert they have poor taste as a fact matter? We even have dialogue of conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson saying they ought to be ashamed. None of this is even close. The article had a substantial criticism section even before the Chavez stuff. By no means was it a puff piece. I was getting ready to type that if you want to criticize Chavez and Saddam, you should go do so in their articles, but actually you should start up a blog or put it on your homepage, because Wikipedia is not supposed to be about that either. DanielM (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde quips can be recycled...

Personally, I find Bush and Chavez criticizing each other to be equivalent to Wilde's definition of fox-hunting: the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable. It struck me as especially ironic that Midge Potter was cavorting with a pink "Impeach Bush" T-shirt during the Waxman committee hearings on Valerie Plame-Wilson. Remembering Watergate, the Ervin Committee, perhaps analogously to the Waxman committee, needed to break ground before impeachment became a consensus.

It is true that I often find it rather hard to find a relationship between the actions of the Bush Administration and reducing the risk of terror. Nevertheless, could someone enlighten me, with reliable sources, on the relationship between Hugo Chavez and the risk of terrorism in the US? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll enlighten you, go to to see the answer you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

At times, I wonder about being enlightened by one who is not even willing to be pseudonymous. Your link goes to the Congressional statement of an Administration official, without any of the Q&A that reasonably might be expected from the committee. It makes some flat assertions that can be challenged, such as Iran absolutely, positively being on a quest to develop nuclear weapons. For that, I'd like to hear a bit of nuclear engineering rather than posturing. Essentially, the testimony is reasonably general: any country that does not accept all of the Bush Administration's assumptions in the semantically questionable "War on Terrorism" must be an Enemy of the State. Perhaps, while we are at it, we should check into compliance with the War on Armored Reconnaissance, or the War on Battlefield Air Interdiction, or the War on Counterbattery Artillery -- which all make equal sense in declaring "war" on a tactic. Perhaps we might add the "War on Privacy" and Security theater.
Mind you, I do regard Chavez as a hemispheric troublemaker -- but Bush has wider ambitions. May I suggest you acquire an account and a username? I don't demand use of your real name, as I have chosen to do -- but having a username does allow looking at a posting history, and evaluating points of view. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that doing a good job would throw the neutrality out of whack for some of you. I simply included the most common and frequent criticism of Code Pink and its leaders. Criticism is not supposed to be neutral, it is supposed to be criticism. What is the point in having a criticism section if you want it to reflect an opinion that is not critical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of a criticism section is having sourced statements that directly deal with the matter being criticized. A well-sourced statement, preferably from someone reasonably unbiased, would specifically criticize Code Pink, as an organization, for visiting the Chavez government. Criticism of the Chavez government independent of its interaction with Code Pink, however, would be offtopic outside an article on "Politics of Venezuela". --> Criticism of Code Pink for meeting with Satan Incarnate, to be appropriate, would be a reliable source reporting on the interactions of Code Pink officials with Lucifer, not of Code Pink alone and not of the Devil.
I assure you the last thing I want is for Code Pink, Hugo Chavez, or George W. Bush to look good. All three, however, manage to be their own worst enemies. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I disagree

My position is that the criticism section is supposed to contain CRITICISM. It is not supposed to be criticism that puts Code Pink in the most favorable light. It does not impact the neutrality of the article because it is under a large bold headline entitled criticism. It does not masquerade for anything other than criticism. It has adequate sources. More importantly, it contains the most frequently leveled criticism against Code Pink which is that it is inconsistent in calling Pres. Bush a dictator and yet its leaders are sympathetic to Hugo Chavez. I'm sorry, but this is a much more frequently leveled criticism than what they do at Walter Reed Hospital. If you want a criticism section it should be well written and well sourced. If you want a weak criticism section than why not just delete the whole section and not present any criticism at all? All of a sudden, we go from a discussion that the page being a PR sheet for Code Pink to arguing now that the criticism section is too strong. I advance the idea that the criticism section presents what it is supposed to and what was lacking on this subject. It's not my fault that it is too potent. Uh, reality check, that is the criticism that is out there. Do a little research and you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take out the criticism section. I'll go back to my non-political Henry Burbeck. I should have known that you could not add valid criticism because if it is too good, it is a big dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I delete the criticism section and now it is back. Go figure? Why not just delete the whole thing. As the person who wrote it I think I could make that decision right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Webter's Dictionary defines criticism as: 1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, well-sourced criticisms must be presented neutrally. A "criticisms" section is not a license to start bashing the organization in question, or presenting criticisms in an accusatory light. Both of those violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view. In general, it is better to be overly cautious on neutrality than otherwise.
As for removing sections, remember that when you submit content to Wikipedia, you agree to license it under the GFDL. Thus you do not "own" the content just as I do not "own" it, and as Medea Benjamin or Jimbo Wales does not "own" it. See WP:OWN. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If I might offer a serious suggestion, there is a distinction between the specific organizational actions of Code Pink, and the actions of its prominent members. Criticism, for example, of Code Pink at Walter Reed, and in Congressional hearings that, ironically, are a less radical approach to what the organization claims to want, seems perfectly appropriate if well phrased and well sourced. Criticism of Medea Benjamin in Venezuela, if that visit, as I understand, is not a Code Pink activity, would be completely appropriate in an article about Medea Benjamin, just as criticism of the veneration of Joe McCarthy is appropriate in an article about Ann Coulter.
This article is about an organization, and there are abundant criticisms of the organization per se. My personal attitude toward Code Pink and its tactics is distaste, but so is my attitude toward Operation Rescue and its tactics. It is not inappropriate, on a talk page, for me to clarify my own position in the interest of full disclosure. It would be highly inappropriate for me to state my own position within the article proper. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard, it is not an illegitimate criticism of Code Pink to say that it criticizes George Bush as a dictator and yet its leadership all goes to Venezuela and the trip is discussed on Code Pink's blog.

I was unaware that it had been on their blog. While blogs are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, in this context, I think that would be valid to quote here, as more of an indication of group position. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, Medea Benjamin is the face of Code Pink. You cannot separate the leadership from the group. Do you really not think it would be a relevant criticism of Operation Rescue if its most high profile members talked about the right to life, but yet they were out supporting the death penalty? Of course it would be because it goes to the ethics behind the organization. Medea Benjamin is not just a regular member, she is the head of Code Pink and she founded it. So, of course when she blogs about her trip to Venezuela, which is included in the sources in the criticism I don't think anyone could fairly argue that it is not relevant to the organization. If what you say is true, then Medea Benjamin as the head of Code Pink, could go out on her own and urge that we go to war with Iran it would have no relevance at all to any critique of the consistency of the politics of the organization.

It would depend on whether or not she made that statement in the name of the organization. This is a difficult area, in that many far-left groups operate on a consensus rather than voting model, but I would like to see a citation where she spoke of a consensus. After the Supreme Court ruling, I accepted George W. Bush as the President, but I rarely would say he speaks for me or my beliefs, even though he gets to read both the President's Daily Brief and My Pet Goat. I am trying very hard to separate what I believe to be appropriate writing under WP rules, from personal opinion -- which, toward Code Pink, is not complimentary -- nor is it to Bush or Chavez. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the politics of the organization is based largely on that of its founders and its leadership. Absent members and leaders, the organization stands for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like Medea Benjamin is collateral to Code Pink. Sorry, but she is the CEO of Code Pink and what she does is hugely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

CEO? Of a radical lefist organization? Try finding the correct title! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't really care whether it is in the article or not. I tried to delete it and it came back. I was here and noticed the discussion on the lack of criticism and the bias in the article toward Code Pink and I thought I would balance it out. I don't care what you do. If you are biased to make the organization look good, which seems to me was the criticism before I had my addition, than that is your call. All I know is that what I wrote is THE most frequent criticism leveled against Code Pink. Moreover, you seem to think that the leadership has no impact on the organization and its values. You can live in la la land on that one all you want. All I know is I don't care what you do. As far as I am concerned DELETE IT. I wrote it and I would like it taken down and that is my right to make that call. So please revert back to the old version. Wyatt

You do seem to make a lot of assumptions and my motives. Perhaps you might ask rather than guess? Actually, I find Code Pink a ludicrous organization that gets in the way of exactly what they are demanding (e.g., the Plame-Wilson hearings), and what I find most offensive, the Walter Reed protests that upset a fair number of wounded soldiers and their families. It doesn't matter if I agree with the policy that ordered soldiers into battle somewhere; I respect their oath and their discipline.
The Chavez matter may get leaders some TV time, leaders who can do less damage to the US when not capering around the Capitol or haunting hospitals. I hear a lot of drama and indignation about Chavez, but no well-sourced specifics of how this damages the United States or its citizens. Treating the Chavez affair as childish "look at me", until you have some reputable sources, seems about right. I am not inserting my personal views in the main article, but keep them on the talk page because I understand the role of NPOV and OR. In another series of controversial articles, I work with people with whom I disagree, using both diplomacy and thorough research. I commend that approach to you.
You said, "I wrote it and I would like it taken down and that is my right to make that call." I suggest you read WP:OWN before making that claim. No, it's not your right, but you are certainly able to delete it. I am not stopping you from doing so, nor am I editing to soothe your apparent emotional distress. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What I know about Code Pink is from federal government-sponseredinvestigations, which are at this time ongoing .......and I cannot therefore cite the 'sources' at this time. But I can assure you that several 'major players' in the upper heirarchy of Code Pink will likely be indicted by the end of 2008 by federal authorities. This group is little more than a biased, anti-American, liberal left-wing front for a self-proclaimed group of 'planet saviors' .....whom have broken law after law, and associated with other groups, entities, and foreign Marxist national leaders .......who both hate the United States, and intend this nation only harm. ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Code Pink's Mission Statement

Howard, here is Code Pink's mission statement from Code Pink Portland's website: About us Code Pink's mission is serious - carrying the message of peace and justice, and responding to corporate crime and globalization, military engorgement, environmental threats and attacks on civil liberties.

You cannot seriously argue that when it claims to be opposed to threats to civil liberties that it is irrelevant when its leadership and most high profile members support Hugo Chavez who Human Rights Watch has accused of attacking civil liberties and supports FARC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm concerned more about American civil liberties than Venezuelan ones. In no way do I defend Chavez (Castro, at least, has a certain style), but you are making inferences that they support Chavez' position. If they do, I'd like to see that as explicit on their website. In dealing with unpleasant world leaders, I endorse Churchill's position of "it is better to jaw, jaw than war, war"...and when there is no alternative, fighting war with controlled yet devastating violence.
The Chavez situation, from what I understand of Venezuelan politics, may resolve itself into his being voted out, or taking dictatorial control.
I am vastly more offended by Midge Potts at the Waxman committee hearings for Valerie Plame-Wilson. Potts capered in and out of camera lens with a pink T-shirt demanding "Impeach Bush". Waxman will be an important part of any impeachment process, and was conducting hearings on a topic directly related to questionable activities of the Administration. I can't think of any rational reason to do that other than cheap publicity, and, bluntly, interference with my political system. I think that, as well as the Walter Reed protests, are far more relevant than the Venezuelan antics. I believe those activities here have gotten abundant coverage (e.g., Washington Post), but the issue in Venezuela seems to be about disagreeing with Bush's world view. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion turns to a characterization of Hugo Chavez. Similarly the criticism in the article is attempting to do at least two things its not supposed to be doing, first to substantiate a criticism of Hugo Chavez in the Code Pink article, second to engage in a guilt-by-association argument (and you cannot seriously say that its not doing so).
Like the editor above I wasn't aware that the Code Pink blog talked up the the trip to Venezuela in which Cindy Sheehan was onstage with Chavez. Sure, that warrants coverage in the article. Presented neutrally it doesn't go in the criticism section though. It should be presented as "Code Pink representatives went to Venezuela and supported Hugo Chavez" and not "Code Pink representatives went to Venezuela and supported Hugo Chavez the terrorist." Or even worse "supported Hugo Chavez the FARC supporter who has been alleged by Human Rights Watch to do this and that and who was stated by a columnist [I read that one] to have referred to his brotherhood with Saddam Hussein." Let Wikipedia readers of the Code Pink article have their own ideas about Chavez and Hussein and FARC that they can further develop by going to those articles or the library if they choose, not here.
Does it belong in criticism if neutrally presented? Who has criticized the visit, Tucker Carlson and WYATTKOPP? I'm not asking if Human Rights Watch criticized Hugo Chavez, I'm asking who criticized Code Pink. If you want it in criticism, then we should have some press accounts and public figures actually saying they shouldn't have done it. Beyond Carlson please. If you remove the argument and characterization of Chavez and the massive amount of POV, then this point about the visit and interview comments of support can fit into a tight paragraph of about 35 words, like the other criticisms. DanielM (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said, and capturing the essence of WP editing and balance. Thank you. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All criticism

While the language of the criticism included here may be more than is necessary to describe the allegations. The reason the clarifications are important is that, in the example of Venezuela, Code Pink is accused of supporting a regime that operates in worse manner than the one they publicly oppose in America. Code Pink's public support for Hugo Chavez in light of his actions while they protest George Bush is a fundamental criticism. An extra line explaining FARC or Chavez in the context of this point is necessary, not off topic.

Furthermore, the habit of users to impose their opinions on an entry, and then direct all criticisms to the talk page is troubling. The rules and tags and other additions to Wikipedia draw it away from its founding. The average user can no longer safely contribute without expecting a list of rules or policies to govern their control. Someday it'll be easier to call the publisher of an encyclopedia and get them to change an entry than to contribute to Wikipedia. Controversial organizations use their entries as PR tools and it defeats the purpose of this website. While I'm sure that most diligent users of Wikipedia seek to better the product for the good of all, the tactic of flooding an entry with tags and other challenges serves only to dissuade the reader from consuming the information, leaving this entry and others as unchallenged PR tools from the organizations that routinely monitor them. ND Conservative (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest some sourced language that focuses on Code Pink, rather than Chavez, and still conveys that their leadership apparently approves of one nation's government, and disapproves of another's government, both of which have been, for example, criticized by Human Rights Watch? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but point out there is an inherent conflict in almost any way this is presented.
AFAIK, Code Pink's internal governance model is "consensus", rather than "voting", so it's hard to distinguish positions of the membership as a whole, as opposed to its leadership. In the interest of full disclosure, my opinion is quite low of Code Pink, Hugo Chavez, and George Bush, for different but real reasons. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We need rules at Wikipedia to stop anybody from adding any nonsense he or she likes. You want to air Tucker Carlson's criticism that Code Pink is hypocritical because in his opinion Chavez is worse than Bush, then just write it that way, don't get into a long-winded polemic about how terrible Chavez is for his love of the FARC according to A and his brotherhood with Saddam Hussein according to B and for tramping on freedom of expression according to C, save all that for those other articles. Just write "Tucker Carlson criticized Code Pink for hypocrisy because they went to Venezuela and supported Hugo Chavez, whom he said was worse than George Bush." Sure you can source and describe the visit some, and maybe even have like two choice lines of dialogue from Tucker's show, but not all this extended polemic about how bad Chavez because this is not the place for that. The only comments from Human Rights Watch appropriate for this article are their comments about Code Pink, and I doubt they have made any. And I totally disagree that this article is a PR tool for Code Pink, it's generally neutral, and right now it's overload with warped criticism. DanielM (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed all the material in the criticisms section explicitly identified as off-topic. I did four separate removals so as to separately identify which article said material allegedly belonged to. I've also left messages on the identified articles' talk pages with links to the diffs where I removed the material, just in case they want to use any of it. The criticisms section still needs a BIG overhaul, but this ought to get the worst of it in places where it might be better suited. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I have not objected to removing all the criticism section that I wrote. I put it in because I saw the discussion and noticed that the comments indicated that this page was basically a press release for Code Pink and that Code Pink's founder wrote part of the article. I knew a little something about Code Pink so I added what I knew.

The Wikipedia editors for this page are not taking an objective look at Code Pink and that is well reflected in the history of the discussions on this page. The criticism I wrote may not be in a New York Times article, but it seems odd that a piece by the Capital Research Group which specifically provides analysis of Code Pink and its history is not given any consideration as a valid source. It is one of the most comprehensive pieces on Code Pink that I have seen and it is well researched. Yet, many of you seem to feel that Code Pink should be treated with kid gloves and that only the positive things about this group should be written. I urge you to read the Capital Research report on Code Pink it is here:

No, I am not interested enough in reading analyses about the individuals, whom I consider political morons, that constitute the leadership of Code Pink. I should be absolutely delighted if Medea Benjamin moved permanently to Venezuela and became lost to American politics, taking her friends with her.
If the article is so well researched, put it into the criticism section. I assure you that I have a low opinion of Code Pink, but I also do not believe that the associational guilt is relevant criticism. I assure you that the group's actions on Capitol Hill or at Walter Reed are sufficient to damn them without pulling their corpse out of the coffin to urinate on it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The person who wrote the article is John J. Tierney who is the Walter Kohler Professor of International Relations at the Institute of World Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based graduate school. He is author of The Politics of Peace. I am not suggesting that Tierney does not have a point of view, but I am suggesting that his criticisms are the most frequently leveled criticisms of Code Pink and to ignore them flies in the face of reality. No criticism can be leveled by someone without a point of view. The issue is a simple one which is the consistency of the organization's values. Recently Code Pink members protested in support of abortion and it seems at odds with their antiwar position. See this news article on that issue

Then make an appropriate, sourced contribution to the article. An anti-abortion article, for a self-proclaimed womens' group, seems relevant to the article, not part of a tantrum on the talk page.

Either the editors want to give Code Pink positive press or they cannot see the forest through the trees in terms of what relevant criticism actually is. I say that you are not portraying this group accurately. You have taken out valid and well sourced criticism simply because it portrays Code Pink in a bad light, but I suggest that when members of Code Pink say they would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George Bush that it is relevant and that they have made themselves look bad. If you are reading this discussion, I would not look to the Wikipedia page on Code Pink if you are looking for a detailed history of the group. This editors of this article will have it back to being a public relations arms for Code Pink very soon and that is too bad.

Wyatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are good reasons to create an account, as demonstrated here by the apparent impostor saying things in Wyatt's name. Nevertheless, it is totally appropriate to have criticism of Hugo Chavez, George Bush, and Medea Benjamin. It is also appropriate that such criticism goes in the appropriate article, well-sourced in all cases.
I am an American eagerly waiting for the next election, when I won't live under George Bush. Equally, however, I would not want to live under Hugo Chavez or Medea Benjamin. Nevertheless, it is within the policy of the United States to support, usually for perceived strategic reasons, to support certain dictators and violators of human rights. That, however, is not appropriate for the main article. To bring up such issues in the Code Pink article violates
The reality is that Code Pink's significant actions, which I personally don't regard as very significant, happen in the United States, not Venezuela. Indeed, if Ms. Benjamin moved to Venezuela, I would not shed a tear, except possibly for Hugo Chavez.
Let me offer a suggestion, on which I will try to find some properly sourced material. In my opinion, which would be OR and unusable in the article, I believe Midge Potter's antics at the Judiciary Committee (Waxman committee) were not only inappropriate, but silly. They were silly because the hearings going on, about Cheney and his staff's actions vis-a-vis Valerie Plame Wilson, could be actual steps toward exactly what Potts' T-shirt demanded, "Impeach Bush". I don't know if you remember them personally, but it took the Ervin Committee hearings in the Senate to get the US electorate and House to begin to realize Nixon had to go. I had campaigned for Nixon, but I saw, regretfully, he was doing things that were violating the Constitution.
Concentrate on things Code Pink does in the US, and throw all the reliably sourced negative criticism you can find at them. I believe that would be useful in the article, which deals with what is clearly a fringe element in American politics. Nevertheless, I cannot see how Code Pink saying anything about Venezuela actually makes a political difference in the US. It is the fact of their trip, away from the country they claim to want to change, which might be the strongest negative criticism -- if it is sourced. The article is about Code Pink, not Chavez. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, all organizations have a core set of values and the actions of high ranking members of an organization is reflective of that organization's values. You are not living in reality if you believe that the entity Code Pink is separate and distinct from its leadership. The criticisms re: Chavez have everything to do with Code Pink here in the US. How can Code Pink level charges that Bush is a dictator and that he is eroding rights when Code Pink's leadership embraces Chavez despite his dismal human rights record and his support of narcoterrorist FARC guerrillas in Columbia? You likely did not read the Capital Report. You want to pick only token criticism of Code Pink because you don't like Bush which you have acknowledged and you probably support Code Pink. That, however, does not make for a terribly balanced article. Why not just simply be honest and tell people you don't want potent criticism of Code Pink. Or better yet, why not ask Medea Benjamin to come back and re-edit the piece like she did before.

It is shallow to just offer an examination of things like Midge Potts. That has nothing to do with the core values of the organization which is far more important to understanding Code Pink. The actions of Code Pink's leaders are far more reflective on the organization than what Midge Potts does. If the actions of the leaders are not relevant to Code Pink, why list them at the bottom. Why not just pretend that Code Pink materialized out of the blue and that the entity runs itself without any leadership. Is it any wonder why Wikipedia's credibility is not that great?

To whom am I to address myself? One who doesn't appear to have enough courage of convictions even to have an IP address associated with their identity, to say nothing of a registered pseudonym? Personally, I find it most credible to use my own name. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi has nothing to do with Code Pink in any way, and any references should be removed, as this appears to either somehow be a justification for or support for Code Pink, when there is no logical relation, thereby meeting the definition of bias.

Criticism of the group has been censored, such as one properly cited amendment to the relevant page that referred to one of Code Pink's leaders as both lying about being a Marine, as well as being previously arrested. Disallowance of widely-published critical material demonstrates that the editors of this page adhere to a biased point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Support of Venezuelan Dictator is Inconsistent With Proclaimed Values

May I suggest that if you this convinced of a bias, you make a Request for Arbitration? Of course, an RfA is going to require that you have an account.

The consistency of Code Pink's antiwar credentials and its values as an antiwar group is criticized because while it publicly opposes President Bush and his policies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Code Pink's leaders have embraced Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Most notably, Code Pink's three highest profile members, Medea Benjamin, Jodi Evans and Cindy Sheehan, visited Hugo Chavez in January 2006. After returning to the United States, Cindy Sheehan stated in an MSNBC interview that she would rather live under Hugo Chavez than President Bush and maintained that Chavez was not a dictator.[16]

Personally, I consider Code Pink irrelevant to the US political process not because of their games with Chavez, as much as their antics at the Waxman Committee showed their total lack of understanding of the political process. Midge Potter capering in an "Impeach Bush" T-shirt, detracting from Valerie Plame Wilson's testimony about what may well have been an impeachable offense, shows that lack of comprehension.
Apparently, it is possible to come from a different ideological perspective but have an equal lack of understanding of the political process, certainly on the Hill. Chavez, in my view, should be allowed to be brothers with any corpses he likes, beginning with Saddam.

Medea Benjamin has often praised Hugo Chavez in various articles despite his support for the communist FARC, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia leftist, narco-terrorist guerrillas which have been responsible for about 750 kidnappings in Columbia and has fought the democratic government in Columbia for forty years.[17][18][19] FARC use routes through

The democratic goverment in Columbia? That's debatable. They only can elect a mayor, city council, but only a nonvoting delegate to Congress.
You also seem to fail to grasp the nature of Wikipedia. Rather than a talk page, if you have a sourced and balanced position, the preferred way of using such material is to put it in an article. You apparently prefer, however, to sulk because others do not consider your particular theme relevant to the Code Pink article, although they would be perfectly appropriate for Politics of Venezuela, political-economic models for South America, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela to import weapons, cash, and war material, and to export drugs and the United States State Department's position is that Chavez is complicit with FARC's activities.[20] Moreover, Chavez has maintained close economic and diplomatic ties with Cuba and Iran. Chavez has also proclaimed his "brotherhood" with Saddam Hussein and has also favorably described the Taliban.[21] While Benjamin has praised Chavez in a series of written articles, and considers herself a human rights and social justice activist[22], she has never publicly criticized him for his seizure of all independent media in Venezuela. Instead, Benjamin associated the Venezuelan media with the elites who were opposed to Chavez. She wrote, "Infuriated by their loss of power, the elite use their control over the media to blast Chavez for destroying the economy, cozying up to Fidel Castro, antagonizing the US government, expropriating private property, and using dictatorial rule." Benjamin further wrote that President Bush and John Kerry, could learn a lesson from Hugo Chavez about winning the hearts and minds of the people.[23]

The organization Global Exchange, which Medea Benjamin is the founding director and co-director[24], describes Venezuela as being " the center of a new, progressive model of socioeconomic development that is shaping Latin America’s future. There are few countries where everyday people actually receive the benefits of cooperation with multinationals: a redistribution of oil profit, a guarantee for healthcare written into the constitution, and record-breaking achievements in education. What's more, having been internationally ratified as a democracy during the August 2004 recall referendum, Venezuela has embarked upon some of the most innovative regional programs that Latin America has ever seen."[25]

Contrary to the assertions of Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan and Global Exchange, Hugo Chavez has not been progressive in the area of human rights. Human Rights Watch has declared that Chavez misused regulatory authority in his decision to shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) harms free expression.[26] Human Rights Watch also accuses Chavez of political persecution and undermining the independence of the Venezuelan judiciary.[27][28][29]

Support of Venezuelan Crackdown on Free Expression

Despite the crackdown on free expression and civil rights in Venezuela, Medea Benjamin continued to support Hugo Chavez. She was quoted as saying that the crackdowns on free expression and civil rights in Venezuela are "myths."[30] In an interview with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, Benjamin was asked, "Do you want to revise that given the news that Hugo Chavez has closed the last nationally broadcast opposition television station for criticizing him?" Benjamin replied that it was not true and that what happened was that Chavez simply did not renew the license because "it "participated in a coup against a democratically elected government, his [Chavez's] government."[31] Carlson responded that a 360 page Venezuelan government published book accused RCTV, the last independent television station closed by Chavez, as showing lack of respect for authorities and institutions. Carlson asked Benjamin, "I would think, as a self described liberal, you would stand up for the right of people to, quote, challenge authorities and institutions. And yet, you are apologizing for the squelching of minority views. Why could that be?" Benjamin replied that, "They [RCTV] falsified information. They got people out on the street. They falsified footage that showed pro Chavez supporters killing people, which did not happen. They refuse to cover any of the pro Chavez demonstrations." Carlson responded that he thought someday Medea Benjamin would be ashamed of her statements regarding the crackdown on RCTV[32]


  1. ^ Pink/ Code Pink: Women for Peace on the site of Global Exchange. Accessed 31 January 2007.
  2. ^ William Hughes, COMMENTARY: Code Pink Challenges White House, Baltimore Chronicle, May 15, 2006. Accessed online 17 October 2006.
  3. ^ 'Code Pink' protestors target Walter Reed Medical Center, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, August 26, 2005. Accessed 28 June 2006
  4. ^ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital, Marc Morano, CBS News, August 25, 2005. Accessed 6 February 2007
  5. ^ Families For Peace Delegation, Code Pink Website, accessed 03 July 2006
  6. ^ Home » Campaigns » Counter-Recruitment, Code Pink website, accessed 03 July 2006.
  7. ^ Code Pink's war protest jams bridge traffic, Marin Independent Journal, September 22, 2006. Accessed online 16 October 2006.
  8. ^ Clinton: 'It's Just Not Fair', The Hill, March 23, 2007. Accessed online 22 March 2007.
  9. ^ Teddy Davis, Code Pink Targets Clinton, ABC News Political Radar March 27, 2007. Accessed online 10 April 2007.
 10. ^ Anti-war protestors arrested at Pelosi's office, The Hill, March 22, 2007. Accessed online 22 March 2007.
 11. ^ Code Pink: Impeach President Bush, "Code Pink: Women for Peace", Accessed online 21 June 2007.
 12. ^ [1], "Washington Post article", Accessed online 25 October 2007.
 13. ^ local CBS affiliate report
 14. ^ Berkeley Daily Planet coverage
 15. ^ "`Bloodied' anti-war protester gets in face of `criminal' Rice", October 25, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-25. (English) 
 16. ^
 17. ^ ttp://
 18. ^
 19. ^
 20. ^
 21. ^
 22. ^
 23. ^
 24. ^
 25. ^
 26. ^
 27. ^
 28. ^
 29. ^ ttp://
 30. ^
 31. ^
 32. ^
 33. ^  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 

the editors want you to know plenty of criticism about code pink

I and I think the other editors who have questioned the extended amount of critical text about Hugo Chavez, FARC, Saddam Hussein, and a crackdowns on free expression" want readers to know plenty of critical things about Code Pink but it needs to be presented in an NPOV way. It should not engage in extended criticism of other subjects in order to establish guilt-by-association. It should avoid weasel words by spelling out just *who* is criticizing Code Pink, not just saying "they have been criticized." I'm not missing the fact that the only criticizer named so far is talk show host Tucker Carlson, and he has had substantial text in each revision of this section that I recall. Above in the discussion we're just getting into ranting and even all-caps shouting from people who don't even sign their name to their comments. The discussion becoming unintelligible. I say stay on topic and make the comments sourced and NPOV and identify from whom the criticism comes and lay off the guilt-by-association a bit. DanielM (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan there is a well resourced Capital Research report on Code Pink, but it seems that only New York Times coverage of Code Pink is acceptable. Mark my words, when history finally assesses why the "antiwar movement" was ineffective it will not that its leaders embraced radical causes that took it out of the mainstream and that their actions were so inconsistent with what they claimed to be that mainstream people were turned away. The author of the Capital Research report provided a lot of history and analysis on Code Pink and it was one of the more in depth articles I have seen on the group thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
69.177, I don't know who Capital Research is, but if they have some criticism of Code Pink then it is up to you if you want to put it in the article. You can say "Capital Research criticized Code Pink for _______." Or, if you are going to make some negative assertion as a fact statement about Code Pink, then you can use them as a source, assuming they meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. I haven't seen this and I've been watching the article. Have you put it in? If not, how can you be complaining that we don't accept it? I think the antiwar movement has been ineffective not for the reason you identify but rather because the media generally lined up behind the war, for example the New York Times disseminated war-mongering propaganda about WMD by way of their reporter Judy Miller. So they're not quite the Code Pink lovers you suggest. It doesn't seem to be getting through, but the editors here are perfectly willing IMO to tolerate criticism of Code Pink in the article as long as it meets some minimal standards and is not some policy-breaking rant. DanielM (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Dan makes good points. Personally, I can't stand Code Pink, George W. Bush, or Hugo Chavez. Given that Code Pink probably has a minority effect on US politics, having them endorse Hugo Chavez is not exactly earthshaking.
As I've said before, I consider Midge Potts', a Code Pink protester, mugging for the cameras at the Waxman Committee testimony, wearing a T-shirt saying "Impeach Bush", an indication of Code Pink's lack of understanding of the US political process and, for that matter, history of impeachment. Nixon resigned when he knew the House Judiciary Committee was going to recommend impeachment, and that the electorate was ready to accept it. Nevertheless, Nixon would never have gotten to that point had not the Ervin Committee, in the Senate, prepared the way. That Potts was capering in a hearing that could very well lead to exactly what she claimed to want shows either a demand for attention, or a failure to understand how the process works. 69.177 (and please get an account), feel free to see if you can get criticism out of the CNN report on that hearing, at I watched it, but I don't see that the language of CNN qualifies as criticism. Perhaps you can get a NPOV way to phrase what was, IMHO, an asinine performance, far more damning than dancing with Chavez.
I'm rather puzzled, in fact, why Chavez is such an issue for you, when there has been fairly widespread criticism of Code Pink in this county, especially at Walter Reed but also by media events, rather than serious participation, in the Congressional process. Please understand that there is a difference between dislike and being encyclopedic. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in citations

Several citations criticizing Code Pink have a strong quote in the footnote, not inline in the text. If the quote is notable, I suggest working it into the article proper; it is too easy to ignore it in a footnote. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is you get an article largely made up of quotes. Lurker (said · done) 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that as a problem. There's always a delicate line among OR, appropriate paraphrasing, and having quotes. Given that these quotes are so controversial, I'd rather see them inline and perhaps get some consensus on which are most appropriate. At the present time, the disputes on this article deal with criticisms of criticisms, and, to a large extent, the quotes are critical.
Without a quote, there's too much room to argue if a given critic or supporter is being a reliable source. Once the content controvery dies down, it may well be that some of the quotes can be paraphrased and left inline, but having them in footnotes often means they will not be read. The average footnote does not contain a quote, so, when reading an article, I don't look at each until I get to the end and want to verify sources. Many other people, I suspect, read the same way, so they are unlikely to see the quote in context of their main reading. If the quote is not important enough to affect the perception of the article, why is it there at all? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved some quotes into the article, while keeping larger sections in the footnotes. I've also removed some of the material from the Tucker Carlson interview section, as it was simply repeating part of the transcript, including its format which isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. Lurker (said · done) 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Flow edit of criticism

I wrote a brief, hopefully neutral introduction to the main areas of criticism. As I need at least one more cup of coffee, my feelings will not be hurt by changes, as long as they are neutral and NPOV.

Next, I switched the order of the US and Venezuelan sections, without changing any of their content. Since Code Pink's major focus is on US policy, it seemed logical to lead the criticism with things done in the US.

I am trying to find a reputable source on some of their activities interfering with Congressional action, especially in the ironic area where the Waxman committee was working on precisely what a pink T-shirt demanded. So far, I've only found Jeannie Moos' (CNN) coverage of the Valerie Plame Wilson testimony, with Midge Potter trying to get into every camera shot. She treats it as amusing but not serious. I will post that if I can't find anything better, but it strikes me personally that the criticism section would benefit with sourced references about Code Pink interfering with process that actually supports what they want done, but without instant gratification and Code Pink publicity.

Incidentally, I believe the above should indicate that as an editor, I regard Code Pink as fools, but I won't put text into the article unless it has one or more reliable sources. Flow and grammatical editing, without changing context, are a different matter; anything that makes the article more informative and easier to read is welcome. That's the reason that I am hesitant to see quotes in footnotes; if they are relevant, they should be in the main article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There were substantial changes in the article since the POV warning banner was put up. I'm in favor of pulling it down now, any other opinions? DanielM (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave the whole thing a read-through, and it seems to once again be a well-written, neutral piece. Only changes I made were a few tweaks here and there. So if you want to yank down the NPOV tag, I'll support you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good lord! "Allegation that Code Pink undermines the War on Terror" in four new paragraphs?! Put the banner back, if you ask me! DanielM (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC) PS: HC, we thought we knew ye! DanielM (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC) know me, and I hope I've been as critical of George Bush as I have of Code Pink. Just for the record, I considered Code Pink just a loud fringe group, until they started getting in the way of Congressional process. Nevertheless, I thought the particular criticism spoke for itself as far as being hyperactive about the "War on Terror"; both sides were equally dubious. I can live with the criticism going, but I would like to see the financial data in the article. It happened to come from right-wing sources, but, having had my time in politics, I pay more attention to who gives you money than who you hug.
Let me explain the source of the criticism. Everything I put in the article came from one of the external links already there, with the minor exception of a link within one of those links. I had noticed that some of the critics were just throwing links in, rather than context. Just as I believe that relevant quotes do not belong in footnotes, I believe that external links have relatively few valid reasons for use in Wikipedia:
  • They add highly technical background
  • They get around a problem with copyrighted material
  • They link to the subject proper (e.g., the Code Pink webpage)
In other words, every bit of criticism I inserted was already there through an external link. A couple of links were broken or referenced each other, but the criticism was there in a stealthy way. I'd rather have it in the open. Seriously, if you feel something is unfair, you won't hurt my feelings by taking it out. I just didn't want the criticism hidden, as it was by external links.
As to the "War on Terror", I really should write an article about the "War on Reconnaissance in Force," the "War on Amphibious Operations", and other equally silly wars on tactics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was able to fill in the missing citation needed for their book, and a reputable source about their investigation on Iraqi women. As to the latter, I didn't see a specific report on their website, but I may have missed it. Putting aside my reactions to the group, these seem solid efforts. Again, I'm interested in seeing the full background on the sourcing. In the case of their book of essays, I'd be curious how many of the authors were included with their active support, and how many were through literary licensing; I have no preconceptions on this but don't have the book to check. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again, you have added not four but seven paragraphs to the article, all negative in tone, some rabid in tone, each seeming to be by or have some connection to this Tierney person. Really, I think what you have put in the article is worse than that longwinded anti-Chavez screed. The article is supposed to have some balance, it is not to be a catalog and extensive quote fest of each and every criticism lodged by a rightwing source (as you mention above) or talkshow host. You suggest I can take it out; I'd flip that back on you and suggest you first have a hard look and decide if what you put in meets Wikipedia standards and ideals, and act accordingly. While doing so please set aside your conviction that Code Pink are fools (as you said previously) and realize that not everything that can be sourced is worthy of being inserted. I'd also question your identifying a criticism that you'd like to be included and then setting out to find reputable sources so you can include, "the criticism section would benefit with sourced references about Code Pink interfering with process that actually supports what they want done," because it smells a bit like original research to me. DanielM (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I hit the wrong key and lost my previous note, which sometimes makes for a better second attempt. First, let me observe that the right-wing negative criticisms, which are all criticisms with which I personally disagree, come from Carlson, Tierney, and Perazzo. Second, note that I filled in, toward the beginning, the long-missing cites on the Code Pink book and Iraqi report, which hardly would seem negative to them. I'll address the OR issue after I discuss the first point.
I have absolutely no problem with deleting some of the right-wing commentary. It is important, I believe, to leave in the financial data, which is reasonably objective. When it comes to the commentary to delete, I would urge you to consider what is most representative of right-wing objection to Code Pink. Without speaking of the politics of the fish, I believe that the most intense opponents of Code Pink regard the Chavez-Carlson matter as a red herring. After all, there is a limit to how much Benjamin can do while outside the country.
While I consider the concept of a "war on terror" as ludicrous to any military historian, the reality is that it is a real rallying point for an influential part of the US electorate. Tierney and Perazzo are addressing that specific issue, which I believe is more relevant in real political terms than Carlson's points. I'll leave it to your judgment whether to delete Carlson or Tierney/Perazzo, but I'd ask you to consider which better exemplifies a rallying point for the right wing. I would ask that the financial parts stay.
Now, as to OR -- I don't think it would be terribly productive to go through the details of the First Amendment and the rules of the Congress, but there is a distinction, in law and history, between protests at such venues as recruiting stations and military hospitals, and interference with the actual processes of Congress. It would have been OR synthesis, although completely accurate, had I created a heading "interference with Congress" and put the list of demonstrations, ejections from hearings, and arrests under it.
Part of my thinking, which I do not consider OR, is that Wikipedia, while English-language and indeed US-centric, still goes to an international audience. Such an audience may not see the difference between protest in public places, such as sidewalks in front of hospitals and recruiting stations, and in a Congressional hearing room or office -- which is not a public place in the First Amendment sense. There is free speech for legislators there, within Jefferson's Rules, the parliamentary authority. There is, however, a long history of protesters being ejected or arrested for disturbing the work of Congress.
I am open to suggestion on getting across what may be a subtle, but important, point. Not knowing your age, you may or may not remember the long struggle of Watergate and hearings, before it was clear to Nixon that he could resign or be impeached. Impeachment, constitutionally, must begin in the House. If it had not been for the Senate's Ervin Committee investigation of Watergate and related matters such as the Plumbers, the national climate would not have been such that the House Judiciary Committee eventually voted on an impeachment, and the electorate was ready to see that happen.
In this case, Code Pink wants Bush impeached, a sentiment with which I do not totally disagree. To achieve that, however, the House would need to act, and the Senate investigation by Waxman's committee may well have been a parallel to the Ervin Committee. For Midge Potts to caper through the Waxman committee wearing an "Impeach Bush" T-shirt, pink or not, demonstrates, at best, an enormous lack of knowledge of history and the US political process. I wish that Wikipedia simply could use the videos, which speak for themselves. CNN regarded Potts primarily as a joke.
In the most neutral possible way, I believe the article would be accurate and do a service to indicate, with sourcing as appropriate, that there was an incongruous relationship between the Code Pink actions in the Waxman Committee, and what the Waxman Comittee was, in fact, doing. Suggestions about how best to present this, which I regard as a consensus position of many political observers from all sides, would be welcome.
I look forward to finding consensus. It was necessary, I believe, to bring out the more extreme position of Tierney et al. to move beyond what was becoming a distraction and essentially meaningless controversy by Carlson about Chavez. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying for both realism and consensus

Medea Benjamin has a bias. John Tierney has a bias. Midge Potter has a bias. Tucker Carlson has a bias. George W. Bush will have a bias as soon as Dick Cheney tells him what it is.

I removed the suggestion that a given source has a bias, because I see no accepted neutral POV in any source. I assume the Wikipedia reader, on a highly politicized matter, will recognize that all have biases and form his or her own opinion. Saying "perhaps XXX has a bias" is weasel wording, unless you apply it to everyone.

"Perhaps" the most unbiased thing in this would be IRS 501(c)(3) or other disclosures required by law, with criminal penalties for inaccurate reporting.

Can we all agree that politics is inherently biased and individuals are likely to be POV, then proceed from there?

Hopefully, Howard

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Funding information is inherently neutral

Tierney says things that are clearly critical and belong under criticism. AFAIK, the IRS 501(c)(3) records are not available in a public database.

It's not unreasonable to assume that if those figures were false, Code Pink, the Streisand Foundation, and others would be taking legal action against Tierney.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard, not sure if this [1] helps you, but *flying star across the screen* The More You Know. Cheers, SimpleParadox 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. While the amount one can get without buying a subscription is limited, the umbrella organization that appears on Code Pink's fundraising, ENVIRONMENTALISM THROUGH INSPIRATION & NON VIOLENT ACTION,has its not-for-profit purpose listed as code :C99 (Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.). That organization lists, under "who we are",


It lists Code Pink as one of its four programs:


Since any interpretation on my part would be OR, should this go under funding? Is it a neutral statement? Are there any judgments on whether it is or is not accurate? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Stunt is neutral, up to a point. First, does it add information?

Second, if the audience in a Congressional hearing demonstrate or interfere with the hearing in any way, they are subject to removal or arrest. The legal theory is that the people delegate their First Amendment rights to their representatives (and staff) inside the Capitol buildings. If Code Pink wanted to have the world's biggest demonstration just outside the Capitol grounds, they would be in their rights as long as they didn't block traffic.

Seriously, could you explain why you think "stunt" improves the article? Really, trying to look at it from every perspective, I can't see how it helps.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

responding to all

To go back to your defense that you didn't engage in original research, here's what Wikipedia policy says: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." (WP:NOR) I would suggest that the incongruity you referred to is your POV. You're doing OR in going out to find sources to support your viewpoint (and soliciting others to do so). Now, it is is not only unreasonable but further ridiculous to suppose that every negative assertion publicly expressed about anybody must be true, otherwise they would have surely been sued. I think sure, we can have a funding section, but not by way of the critic who is calling Pink "anti-everything American" (his italics) and so forth. I'm going to regard budgetary information filtered through this person as entirely suspect and so would many editors I believe. Lastly, wearing a message t-shirt and maneuvering to get in front of the cameras at a solemn Congressional testimony is the very definition of a "stunt" IMO and I think it'll comport with any dictionary definition as well. DanielM (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To go back to your defense that you didn't engage in original research, here's what Wikipedia policy says: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." (WP:NOR) I would suggest that the incongruity you referred to is your POV.
Let's assume that is the case. What do you see as my POV? I'm not a supporter of any group in this. If I have a POV, it should be reasonably apparent. Sometimes, citing the more extreme people on both sides gives a better feeling of the situation. It's not always false to say one is known by one's enemies.
I'm not sure what you mean by cutting up your comments. If you mean that I responded to a point, in the midst of text, which was clearly set off by different indentation, I plead guilty to something that is perfectly common in email and online forums. Doing so makes the context clear, which was my intent.
It's administrator time, I'm sorry to say. I still don't know what you mean by "incongruity" about my POV. Does every conflict have a right side and a wrong side, or can reasonable adults say that all participants in a conflict are irrational? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You're doing OR in going out to find sources to support your viewpoint (and soliciting others to do so). Now, it is is not only unreasonable but further ridiculous to suppose that every negative assertion publicly expressed about anybody must be true, otherwise they would have surely been sued. I think sure, we can have a funding section, but not by way of the critic who is calling Pink "anti-everything American" (his italics) and so forth.
?? who have I solicited about what, other than some neutral source to get the IRS numbers??? I would be absolutely delighted to find someone who knows how to get IRS public-record information. Is that something fair to ask at the village pump? I'm no tax expert, although I'd have a better idea for the Federal Election Commission. There are some people I know who may know if this material is online.

I'm going to regard budgetary information filtered through this person as entirely suspect and so would many editors I believe. Lastly, wearing a message t-shirt and maneuvering to get in front of the cameras at a solemn Congressional testimony is the very definition of a "stunt" IMO and I think it'll comport with any dictionary definition as well.

Are you willing to leave the budgetary information by itself, with a minimum comment that it comes from a recognized right-wing source, or do you really need to follow it with the "anti-everything" comment? It's fair to say something came from an ideologically POV source, as long as the relevant legal material, such as citing 501(c)(3) as the source, is mentioned. I do not consider it NPOV, however, to follow the cited money trail, with a statement by the right-wing source, editorializing. That same rabid criticism can go in the criticism section, where it belongs. You've already put a caveat on the validity of the numbers.
Second, I'm agreed that is a definition of a stunt. Is it POV to emphasize "stunt" in the heading? I do not believe that it is NPOV; I think it suggests an approval of disrupting "solemn Congressional testimony". There's too damn much grandstanding on Capitol Hill as is; the politicians do not need outside help. Please consider whether the way you are presenting "stunt" is POV. I believe it is.
The POV tag needs to stay on this article. I'd hate to have it need to go to mediation or arbitration. There's an old political commentator called Mr. Dooley, a fictional Irish bartender, who said "Politics ain't beanball." If Code Pink can give out criticism, surely it can take it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying once again, I ask for assumptions of good faith, but I'm not seeing it.

To me, the Tierney line "Perhaps displaying a bias, Tierney further calls Code Pink "anti-everything about America." belongs in criticism. It simply adds inflammatory content to a section, quoting public data, that still is headed "right-wing".

I appreciate the comment about the "stunt" being self-defeating. That is a fair statement.

Please, please look at the headings and see if they are neutral. I can't see how adding "right-wing" or "left-wing" to a heading helps NPOV.

Have you ever seen a dispute in which all parties were, in different ways, wrong? In this matter, I see no side as being correct, and it's POV to suggest any side has truth, justice, and the American way on its side. Unfortunately, I am seeing edits as pro-Code Pink that are not sourced. In particular, headings need to be as NPOV as possible.

I am willing to discuss rationally, but there is a point at which I will call for arbitration on the OR synthesis issue. That point is very, very close.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

responding to more

Howard, I see you rearranged my comments, apparently to have a more conversational flow, but I have to ask you to leave what I typed for the Wikipedia record as I typed it. I find your rearranged version of my comments harder to follow, not easier. If you feel like you need to get more proximity to my points to answer them effectively, then use quote marks and "Daniel M said" or similar. I reassembled my comment a moment ago.
Okay, to answer you... Your position with respect to Midge Potts' t-shirted grandstanding is that "Code Pink [interferes] with process that actually supports what they want done," that it is "ironic," and that it is "incongruous." This is a point of view. Fine, but as I said for you to go off and seek sources to support this point of view, and to solicit others to do the same, may violate WP:NOR, at least that is my concern. You understand? I don't think any problem text was inserted though, so IMO this doesn't need to be belabored, but you asked, so I'm responding.
This article depends on the contribution of all its editors. I remain concerned about citing a virulent CodePink critic as a reliable source for where they get their funding. It should go in criticism if it goes in at all (which it shouldn't). More basis for my position: in reading your references of this individual Tierney, and those in turn cited by him, I noticed some mischaracterizations. You said that the allegation of "undermining the War on Terror" was against CodePink, however the reference (Tierney) made the charge against this other group PSFG. Tierney said that PSFG funding was "likely" very important to CodePink, citing *Perazzo*, but when I looked up the Perazzo reference (linked in the Tierney article) it didn't say anything about CodePink! Apparently, both Berkowitz and Tierney misstated their references in a manner prejudicial to CodePink! I'm tempted to make a sarcastic comment, but I'll confine myself to saying that I really resent having to read through these distorted rightwing attack references to stop the CodePink article from being similarly warped.
I think the headers should be descriptive, so readers can get an idea right off. If CodePink does a tap dance and plays heavy metal at the inauguration next year, the header should be "heavy metal tap dance at inauguration," not "actions at inauguration." I don't understand for the life of me how you think the use of the word "stunt" implies approval and is POV (!), to me stunt has a clear and appropriate negative connotation. I think the dictionary is going to support me, but if you and the other editor are so concerned, pick some other word. DanielM (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll copy quotes in my response; I see your point that while it may be more conversational in the short term, it may not help a permanent record.
There is a delicate line between OR synthesis, and being objective yet informative. When an editor (OK,me) has direct experience in a subject, and doesn't see a relevant aspect covered in any way, objective or not, I think it's responsible to bring up not personal observation, but reasonable sources. Let me take a totally different subject, such as wound infections with "flesh-eating bacteria" (generally strains of Streptococcus pyogenes). If that article merely reported that someone had come in and put slices of bread on the area, I would consider it responsible editing to find references that represent current medical opinion: surgical debridement and massive doses of intravenous antibiotics. I spent 40 years or so in Washington, including working for the Library of Congress, and I know that neither Democrats nor Republicans are amused by "stunts" (your word, not sourced) in hearings. In this case, my experience was that the effect of stunts really needed to be documented for the general reader.
Quoting you, "stunt has a clear and appropriate negative connotation". For most people, it represents a negative and unsourced POV. It was not clear to me, when you made a comment about solemn hearings, if you were or were not suggesting that the solemnity was undesirable. "Code Pink actions at Plame-Wilson Hearing" is descriptive and neutral. "Actions" could include Code Pink representatives, in pink power designer suits, giving testimony to the committee. Actions could include trying to be in every view of the witness. Headings should be neutral. I disagree that "plays heavy metal at inauguration" is more informative than "actions at inaugurations". Headings are not expected to convey information, but to assist people in finding the informative text. In an encyclopedia, they are for indexing, not the eye-catching style of newspapers.
I will have to reread the Tierney and Perazzo articles in detail; it was not my intent to mislead. Without them in front of me, my recollection is that you are correct that Perazzo didn't directly say anything about Code Pink. What he did talk about, IIRC, was the funding of an umbrella group from which Tierney said Code Pink received funds. The article by Tierney alone was confusing; the two needed to be read together. I may have misread and I will happily say so if rereading gives me that impression. At this time, however, it is my impression that Code Pink receives funding from a source that may have a relevant ideological POV. Quoting you, "Apparently, both Berkowitz and Tierney misstated their references in a manner prejudicial to CodePink! I'm tempted to make a sarcastic comment..." I'd say you did make a sarcastic comment. I hope my understanding of good faith editing is that if I found an inconsistency in your sources, I'd write something along the lines of "A and B, quoted by Daniel, do not appear to agree with each other or the point that was put in the article. Would you mind rechecking these?"

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that you intentionally misstated the reference. You said in the section title "allegation that Code Pink undermines the War on Terror." As I did, you can painstaking go through your reference, and the reference's applicable reference (which you also referred to or quoted) but neither of them makes this charge against Code Pink. It is a dreadful and heinous charge to suggest that CodePink undermines the struggle against terrorism, so it wasn't any minor misstatement. I suppose that such things are a hazard when dealing with these overtly leftist/rightist sources. I disagree that I was sarcastic. The sarcastic comment would have been "big surprise!" or "shocker!" I admit that I don't like the fact that you put in all this rubbish from these politicized sources and that I had to actually read and critique them to substantiate the obvious problems and distortions and spotty reliability inherent with them. The article was in a reasonable place, with a lot of meat for Pink haters too, right before you threw all this new rubbish in there. Irritation perhaps, but no grudges here. DanielM (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You've made me think about irritation, and, to be honest, I'm most irritated at those that trumpet "War on Terror", which, to anyone with a serious background in military history or doctrine, makes about as much sense as "War on Amphibious Landings" or "War on Anti-aircraft Guns". One doesn't war with a tactic, one wars with an ideology or a government; I can cite terrorists across the ideological spectrum. To me, the Tierney and Perazzo statements condemn them as fools. Now, if they had said something like "reduces US security", or "gives propaganda to al-Qaeda", that would be another matter. "War on terror", however, strikes me as a sound bite used by people not willing or able to analyze any farther.
Will you take my assurance that I believe that quoting an ideologue is often the best way to neutralize them? That being said, there are some fairly extreme things being said by Code Pink members, although I don't see them as plotting together to have a grand strategy.
That being said, I honestly did not believe the article brought out the viciousness of the criticism that Code Pink's actions engender. Perhaps you can help me phrase this better. On the one hand, the two political extremes hand ammunition to one another. Your summation of the counter-productive aspect of the Waxman hearing is excellent. I really think that it is valid and NPOV to show how extremists drive each other. That was my reason for including the Tierney material, more to show the reaction Code Pink may generate in opposition, which I believe is relevant to the attack politics that is all too common in the US.
As I promised, I am trying to get in touch with someone who, while the individual tends to wear tinfoil hats at the very least, is also a very knowledgeable forensic accountant. If the relevant IRS reports are online, she will know how to access them. I literally don't know if Code Pink is or is not in an alliance with other groups with common funding, but, if that can be established neutrally, I see that as relevant.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you weren't doing OR before, you would surely be doing it now to have this forensic accountant acquaintance of yours go through IRS records to get data on CodePink. DanielM (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What? How is it OR to go through public records on anything? What do you suggest be used for sources instead? Because I watched the CNN/ESPN Waxman hearing, is it OR if I search for a transcript and preferably commentary on them?
In the specific case, Code Pink states it is an IRS 501(c)(3) organization. In general, political action groups have to be IRS 507 organizations. I'm getting baffled, Daniel, and wondering if you only want sources that support a particular POV -- and I don't understand what that POV includes.
Are finding articles in major news media POV? Would Code Pink's own site be POV?
What I did today was to search, myself, for database services on nonprofit organization funding. I found one that seemed to be a straightforward information broker that put some information out free and charged for greater detail. I picked that source as it seemed to have no political positions of any sort. How is that POV or OR? I look it as CCR -- careful and comprehensive research.
Any admins reading? I attempted to address some of Daniel's concerns on his webpage. After suggested that a politicized source of funding information was POV, I went and found one with no apparent political agenda. From that site, I followed link to organizations claiming to support Code Pink, and then to Code Pink's own site.
If this is improper research, than I give up on trying to write using thorough sourcing. I'll try some of the other dispute pages, but may need to file a RfA. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

As I knew was going to happen, the criticism section has grown again. It's now about half of the article. Lurker (said · done) 18:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what do you think the article should contain? AFAIK, Code Pink has no position papers other than press releases. I believe it is fair to say that they express themselves through action. There are positive and negative reactions to those actions, which take the form of criticism in some cases.
What do you think is a fair and balanced structure for the article? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT. The criticism section should simply be shorter. Lurker (said · done) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:WEIGHT, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Might I ask what you believe to be the minority and majority views of Code Pink, especially in the US? Let's not worry about synthesis for the moment, but to consider the views not in Washington DC, but throughout the country. Such a discussion might clear the air about POVs and the general public perception of Code Pink, rather than among editors who happen to be editing this article.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS WRITING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT CODE PINK! MEDEA BENJAMIN WILL BE BACK TO PUT THIS PAGE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is now even more dominated by criticism. In critic John Tierney's section alone, he gets more than 200 words to lay into CodePink and say they are anti-American. And this criticism, huge now, now has been reduced from its original gargantuan state. Particularly the relationship-with-Chavez and Tierney portions were once even longer. In several cases this stuff is not coming from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as WP:V calls for, it is coming from conservative websites and talkshows. I don't think this is the way we're supposed to be doing things. DanielM (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As you know, I have asked for third-party help in mediation or arbitration. In the meanwhile, let me throw out something to treat as food for thought. To quote your observation on the source of some materials that are critical of Code Pink, "it is coming from conservative websites and talkshows." I'm going to concentrate a bit more right now on the talkshow. Unfortunately, even the mainstream electronic media rarely do much in the way of objective reporting -- it's much more focused on the sensational, because that's what the advertisers believe their audiences want.
For example, Jeannie Moos of CNN did speak with Midge Potts after the Waxman hearings. Immediately, one wonders if the producer is interested in anything more than fill, as Moos appears to specialize in the quirky and humorous. CNN does have some reporters that are known for hard questions and doing homework. If Wolf Blitzer had interviewed her, I might very well have expected him to ask some of the questions I would have like asked: "Do you believe that the Waxman Committee, perhaps much as did the Ervin Committee during the beginning of Watergate, is investigating things that might lead to the impeachment demanded on your T-shirt? Why? Why not? If they are, do you think that your actions help the movement to impeach? Why?"
Once upon a time, there were news shows that dug for content, such as Murrow or Cronkite. They gradually moved to a very polite set of talking heads, such as "Meet the Press". The advertisers apparently didn't like that -- and I'd note that Murrow, etc., was considered a service of the network, not driven by advertising -- and we soon had yelling matches such as McLaughlin and "Point Counter Point", the latter immortalized in parody with "Shana, you bitch."
Where are the news shows that have a tough and neutral moderator, say, between Benjamin and Tierney? I'm not sure they exist any longer. Unfortunately for the country, the radio talk shows are almost universally angry right-wing.
So, we have websites. Frankly, I find a website that does financial analysis of group relationships to be fairly serious. But, let's assume Perazzo is completely tainted. Is there a website anywhere in which Code Pink puts out a thoughtful analysis of issues concerning them, "" doesn't have anything on politics; it's a travel site for women, someone probably having snapped up the domain name.
How is Code Pink -- and I'd really like to find the source if it exists -- putting out anything besides sound bites at demonstrations? They do have some news releases at things like the Walter Reed demonstration, which perhaps are a page of accusations.
In other words, where are the reputable sources, on either side of this issue, that address substance, not sound bites? I don't see any. Code Pink is good at dramatic confrontations, but not as good at working in the political process. What objective sources exist that will give a reasoned account of a Code Pink position, which could then be matched against a reasoned position at the other end of the political spectrum?
The sad reality is that you aren't seeing either reasoned charges from Code Pink or reasoned responses from the right, or I've missed them if so. Tucker Carlson's charges about Chavez are less dramatic than Tierney's, but certainly marginal when it comes to the U.S. political sphere.
So I ask, Daniel, what to do in such situations? Just copy Code Pink's news releases? I would be delighted, in this or any other political exchange, to see ideas, not slogans, on both sides. In the Democratic presidential primary campaigns, there are a few issue papers, but all sides, Republican and Democratic, also go for smears. There are a few candidates, not all in one party, that I believe don't want smears and stop them when staff issues them, but, sadly, most candidates are indulging in attack politics.
Does Code Pink, again to use your quote, have "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Do its own statements have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
Again, I ask, how does one provide balanced, encyclopedic coverage of an organization that self-describes itself as using confrontational tactics? Do they get a free pass on criticism if there is no one that criticizes them in a calmer way than their own "stunts", to use your word? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason that I'm aware of that a confrontational protest group can't be the subject of an encyclopedic encyclopedia article. They should be covered using the same principles and style as any other article. The quote above about reliable sources isn't mine, it's from WP:V, which is policy. There are plenty of reputable sources reporting on CodePink, such as NBC, The Arizona Daily Star, The Marine Corps Times, the Contra Costa Times, The Knoxville News Sentinel, and the Southwest County Journal, according to a search of news sites I did a second ago. Maybe the reliable sources just aren't saying what you want to hear, and so you go and hunt up these politicized, vicious ones like Tierney, because they do. DanielM (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ever heard of WP:Good faith? There are, indeed, simple reports that "Code Pink did X", "Operation Rescue did X", the "John Birch Society did X". Financial support did seem relevant, and I obtained that from an apparent commercial, non-ideological database on nonprofits. Correct me if I misunderstand, but it appears that any material I obtain from any site, in your opinion, is to find politicized and vicious ones. Tierney is not especially vicious, as such things go. I find his own statements show that both sides are bringing out the worst in one another.
Assume he is being vicious. Could no one assume Code Pink is being vicious as well? I am hearing a defensiveness about them here. You apparently object to financial data. I might note that a 501(c)(3) is not allowed, under tax law, to take political positions. Code Pink, I trust, is nonpolitical? Is Tierney nonpolitical?
Try discussing things on a discussion page, rather than slinging accusations and guessing at my motivations. At this point, please tell me what you would find acceptable for me to add to the article.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I just did searches with "Code Pink" and the first four news organizations you mention. The majority do not deal with Code Pink itself, but with the actions of the Berkeley City Council in supporting their protests against Marine recruiters. There were complaints about that action, in part from local business disrupted by the protest. I ignored random blogs for and against.
There were also reports of Code Pink protesters interrupting question-and-answer sessions with Huckabee, and being forcibly removed. Again, there were concerns expressed by people who came to hear a speaker. Are these unfair criticisms? I'm trying to understand what you do consider fair criticism. Again, as Mr. Dooley said, "politics ain't beanball." Given the intensity of right wing talk radio and the like, which have had an effect -- not a good one -- on the quality of political discourse in the United States, is it unacceptable to report indeed vitriolic responses? What are your criteria for a criticism being too extreme?
I have repeatedly asked you to describe what you consider fair criticism, and I see little response other than accusations. Tell me what is fair criticism, or, even better, put it into the criticism section, with at least recognition that there is a cause and effect between Code Pink actions and what I agree are hateful responses -- but are real responses. Are these somehow taking power away from someone else?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem I see with Tierney, from whom you posted 200-plus words of quotes, is that I don't believe he meets WP:V standards for being used as a reliable source about CodePink's financial data. Above, I pointed out a specific instance where he misstates a source. Additionally, as you seem to acknowledge, he does have a "hateful" tone. My personal sense is that extended hateful quoting is bad for Wikipedia but I can't back that up with policy, except perhaps for "Undue Weight," referred to above. I also think that critics should have some standing to criticize; the comment from President Bush is surely appropriate, as might be one from a Congressperson, or a double amputee, depending on the subject, but to accord 200-plus words to a little known author to describe his belief that CodePink is "anti-everything about America" (his italics) seems clearly inappropriate to me. DanielM (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if we can find some agreement. The "anti-everything" quote indeed seemed hateful, but I saw it at the end of Tierney's comments about finances. Do you consider to be a reasonably unbiased source? It seems to be a commercial data broker, especially given that they charge for the next level of detail.
Some of the material about ETINA seems, for want of a better term, odd. A Code Pink funding solicitation asks checks to be made out to ETINA/CODE PINK. At this site, Code Pink describes itself as "a global movement of women for peace...We are a 501-C3 org and your contribution is tax deductible. Our tax exemption number is: 95-4658841."
Andrew Beath, about whom I know nothing other than the data at ETINA and Earthways, does seem to be the person with financial responsibility, reporting to the IRS. Unless he is a paid accountant or other financial professional, I'm a little surprised to find someone with a male name being in the key position of financial reporting. Literally, he could go to jail or have assets seized if the IRS doesn't like the reports. It would seem a position for someone very committed to a cause. Beath's personal foundation is This organization describes its mission as "Natural Resources Conservation and Protection". It describes ETINA as one of the projects it started.
The 501(c)(3) status seems unusual, rather than IRS 527, since the tax code expects 501(c)(3) to be nonpolitical. Years ago, when I worked for a 501(c)(3) research and development organization for the computer industry, we were closely scrutinized for both antitrust and politics. It's hard to think of Code Pink as nonpolitical.
At first search, only distinctly right-wing sources have commented on this apparent irregularity. I'd far rather see an objective analysis of financial and tax status than Tierney's frothing. My concern, based on some things you have said, is that if I go off looking for any investigation of this, be it from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, your position appears to be looking for substantiation of an apparent irregularity is OR. Is that correct?
It does concern me about POV if you consider it inappropriate to look for criticism based on something objective, as opposed, say, to the dubious impact of the Chavez-Benjamin event. Do I misunderstand?
Several of the sources you mentioned referred to Code Pink's protest in Berkeley, both in favor of the City Council's action in giving Code Pink preferential parking and opposed to the disruption of business. Frankly, I consider the entire Berkeley matter essentially local and not terribly significant. The Walter Reed protests are more on the national stage.
Again I ask, what do you consider to be a fair source of criticism, and under what circumstances is it reasonable to look for independent sources that support an observation? If the latter is unreasonable OR, it seems to limit reasonable editing.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about what you or I personally find to be a fair criticism, it's about complying with Wikipedia policy. We need to separate your use of Tierney for A) use as a source for information on CodePink funding and B) personal criticism of CodePink's patriotism or whatever. I've made the point above that he is a not a reliable source per WP:V on (A). As for (B) anybody can be a critic, a school-child or a plumber or a nuclear physicist can be a critic about anything they like. Perhaps they criticize CodePink. As I said above, I find that a critic should have some standing or relationship to the subject to have his or her view of it featured in the Wikipedia article, but I haven't located policy for that, other than WP:WEIGHT. Neither have I removed your extensive Tierney quotes. We seem to agree that they are hateful and frothing, but for some reason you want them in. Do you think Tierney is a notable voice for criticizing Pink, if so by what standard?
Now, shifting gears to WP:NOR, I read your other sources in your budget section and I have to say that it appears to be OR to me. Some of those sources do not even mention CodePink. They refer to this other group, that you have linked to CodePink, by your sources, through the way they instruct their contributors to write checks. Did you notice I said that *you* had linked Pink and Etina? Not a newspaper or TV station but you, a Wikipedia editor. I do distinguish between what you write on the discussion page and what you put in the article, but above also you really seem to be onto a hot lead with your comments about the unusual 501 status and you're surely on the scent of this Beath person too. You've got the beginnings of a front page expose there possibly, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, because it's OR. DanielM (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Respecting your wishes not to intersperse comments, let me try to answer. Let me preface my next comment that, to the best of my knowledge, I am unrelated to a source named Berkowitz that I'm about to mention. There was a Bob Berkowitz in my high school, but, if it's him, I haven't seen him in decades.
As far as Tierney being a legitimate source of criticism, see, about two screens down. I believe, given that background, he is notable, if undignified. Tierney appears to have a fairly substantial resume, certainly on the right (as much as that is meaningful), but things like Heritage Foundation Fellow, Chairman of the Department of Politics at the Catholic University of America, and currently Faculty Chairman and Walter Kohler Professor of International Relations at The Institute of World Politics (an accredited graduate school in DC) are not random. I don't know the man personally. Bluntly, he demonstrates more experience working with the political system, rather than confronting it, than Medea Benjamin or Cindy Sheehan. I'm not attempting to judge his political views, and I probably disagree with a number of them. Nevertheless, he's not an "entertainer" like Rush Limbaugh. As far as confrontation, Ann Coulter is probably closer to Medea Benjamin than Tierney.
I was surprised by the intensity of his distaste for Code Pink, and, given his background, I think that is somewhat noteworthy. Daniel, help me out here if you can. I believe it is fair WP coverage to indicate that Code Pink triggers, in at least somewhat rational people, as much rage as George W. Bush seems to trigger in Cindy Sheehan. There's a phrase in the intelligence community where "the fact of" something is significant, and the fact of the emotional responses Code Pink triggers, I believe, is notable. I don't consider Medea Benjamin or Midge Potts stupid, but I think it is fair to say that they have no particular desire to work within the political system, but, depending on your viewpoint, "raise consciousness" or "radicalize". Overall, that seems to be the model that Code Pink follows, by its own statements.
Let me reiterate. I believe it is fair criticism to indicate that Code Pink engenders, perhaps quite deliberately, strong reactions. Tierney seems to have fairly solid academic and governmental background, has been in politics for a while, and yet he acts in this manner.
Only for context, I would not dream of citing, in the article, the reactions of soldiers I know, active, reserve, disabled and retired, to the Code Pink protests at Walter Reed. I'm a strong enough supporter of the First Amendment that I'd probably have to make the difficult choice to stand between them and some friends, because the friends literally might try to do violence. Tierney, in a more formalized way, represents that. If you don't think this is an emotional struggle, look at the words of the Berkeley (CA) city council regarding the Marine recruiters against which Code Pink is demonstrating.
I think we differ in the way we interpret "OS" -- original synthesis -- with respect to WP:NOR. Synthesis is unavoidable in clear writing. If I may take a completely different area, computer networking, when I edit, I see, from years of consulting and teaching, how some editors are making a common error. In some cases, I have cited some of my own peer-reviewed work, but I often find it useful to refer to a number of sources, invite the reader to compare the language in them, and make their own decision if their synthesis is still viable. The references I mention are authoritative. The secondary source issue, at times, becomes absurd, when one popular textbook completely misinterprets with what rigorous technical definitions say, but editors claim the secondary text is more encyclopedic.
To that I say: nonsense! In many documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which defines the major specifications of the Internet, there are tutorial sections clearly separated from the "primary" specification, the latter precise but in language appropriate only for subject matter experts. In my own peer-reviewed work, I needed to review prior art. This is competent writing, and I see no rationale not to have it in an encyclopedia.
As far as the tax issue, I've taken it to my level of expertise, and, were I to go farther, I wouldn't be synthesizing, I'd be irresponsibly guessing. There's a saying that scientific progress isn't primarily made by people shouting eureka!, but muttering "gee, that's odd." Making oddities and unanswered controversies is part of reasonable encyclopedic writing -- I can cite any number of scientific articles where the important part is "here's what we don't know."
If what I'm doing is unacceptable synthesis, I see no value to my participation in Wikipedia. I edit and do new articles in things where I have expertise. I do not write about manga, Formula I racing or hair styling because I have no particular knowledge of them. Indeed, I know more about brain surgery than cutting hair.
Thanks for your courtesy in this. Maybe we can get to some useful place.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "I believe it is fair WP coverage to indicate that Code Pink triggers, in at least somewhat rational people, as much rage as George W. Bush seems to trigger in Cindy Sheehan." If you want to use the Wikipedia article to substantiate the idea that CodePink triggers rage in rational people, you simply have to find a reliable source that reports this directly. You can't just link enraged commentary as sources and write that CodePink engenders irrational rage among the populace. I also think you need a source that is a practicing psychologist writing in his or her field of expertise for something like that. I wouldn't be discouraged if I were you, no doubt you have plenty to offer Wikipedia that is not original research. DanielM (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, is there a double standard here? You accept George Bush as a critic of Sheehan, without a judgment, by a mental health professional, of the appropriateness of his criticisism. You describe, not unreasonably, Tierney's comment as "extended hateful quoting", and want a "reliable source that reports this directly".
Quoting from the article, I see:
  • "24 October 2007: Desiree Ali-Fairooz approached Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with red paint on her hands and shouted "The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands!" The Baltimore Chronicle citation for this remark is marked as commentary, by William Hughes, "a Baltimore attorney, is the author of Saying ‘’No’ to the War Party." Other than legal training, there is no indication that Mr. Hughes has any credentials in psychology, psychiatry, or even social sciences.
  • "28 April 2007: Code Pink held a nationwide protest for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney claiming the two "lied the nation into a war of aggression, are spying in open violation of the law, and have sanctioned the use of torture. These are high crimes and misdemeanors that demand accountability." This comes from Code Pink's own website, which is not a recognized reputable source on the history and politics of the impeachment process; on the criteria for a war being deemed aggressive under the UN Charter, Kellogg-Briand Pact, or other treaties or, in the language of the Geneva Conventions, "a competent tribunal".
In this specific case, I agree with Code Pink more than I disagree, but I am not representing myself, to the American people, as an authority on international law. That I consider George Bush's major reference source in such Decider action to be My Pet Goat is irrelevant. Code Pink, in this statement, is not being a "reputable source", but a source of opinion, as is Tierney -- who does have some reasonable credentials for making judgments in international law.
So, I'm confused. If the article said "Code Pink protested the Administration's position", I certainly would not say they were giving a qualified and respected opinion. I know nothing of Ms. Ali-Farooz's background, but, if the issue is Iraqi deaths, would not an admittedly controversial article from a peer-reviewed medical journal, of which there are several, be more of a reputable source? Public health faculty at Johns Hopkins, authors of articles in the Lancet, etc., seem to make their points with statistics and methodological review, not red paint.
There are other citations where Code Pink was removed from disrupting proceedings, on the authority of a Congressional committee chairman, or by the Capitol Police. While we must assume innocence until the proof of guilt, I see no question of whether Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) was or was not making a proper determination to have protesters removed from his committee meeting, any more than "security" was competent to determine if protesters should be removed from fund-raisers and speeches, presumably on private property.
I remember reading a stinging bit of social criticism about the concept of "celebrity" in American culture, which happened to be about Paris Hilton "being famous by being famous." If Code Pink's statements and actions, some of which have caused security actions apparently within the authority of the presiding official, have their political quote in the article, a quote that Tierney, for example, apparently considers hateful, celebrity seems to be at work. Again, a simple statement that Code Pink did something would be NPOV. As soon as they make a political judgment, often in inflammatory words and with confrontational tactics, it would seem balanced writing for an opponent to be able to use inflammatory words.
There would be no appearance of a double standard had there been a report that "Medea Benjamin criticized the United States and John Tierney disputed the criticism." Is that what is happening here?
Please think about the basic concept of balanced encyclopedic writing before requiring source reputability in criticism of political speech, as opposed to documentation of an event, when you ask for no verification of the Code Pink claim. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be going in long, long circles here. I don't think I apply any double standard at all. George Bush's statement that people ought to spend less time listening to CodePink is just a different matter than you put forward, which was to have Wikipedia coverage of the idea that CodePink triggers rage in somewhat rational people. I don't have time to get into all your text in the middle, but I will address your comment at the end about balance. I think the CodePink article is severely off-balance in its current state. It's dominated by criticism. I'd welcome others to chime in at this point because I don't think the discussion is going anywhere as is, and I've said about all on this I care to. DanielM (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All of you have done Wikipedia a service

All of you are completely ignorant on this subject. First of all, you are so afraid of coming to grips with the reality that Code Pink is a FRINGE group and yes, they are extreme. It belies reality to judge the article's fairness by the length of the criticism contained within it simply because when you are writing about a FRINGE GROUP there will be a lot of criticism. If you think Code Pink is in the mainstream of the antiwar crowd, I feel sorry for your perspective on reality. They have achieved nothing accept take every outrageous opportunity they could find to get attention for themselves and in the process they have made themselves look like the fringe group they are. All of you fail to grasp that you cannot portray a fringe group WITHOUT a lot heavy criticism. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE A FRINGE GROUP BECAUSE THEY DO STUPID, HYPOCRITICAL AND OUTRAGEOUS THINGS. Get a clue or stay in your distorted Orwellian world view where 2 plus 2 is not 4. All of you are trying to please everyone so much that you cannot be honest in dealing with a contemporary issue. It does Wikipedia no service to ignore reality to please a small cadre of people. You claim to want valid sources to meet your high standards which you apply to this particular subject. However, is it any wonder that the New York Times does not waste its ink on Code Pink because most of the media recognizes what you do not which is that Code Pink is an extremist group. You have an academic article written by Tierney and you are even afraid to use that. It is my position that all of you are so afraid of reality and offending someone that you are afraid to present information because in your eyes there has to be a 50/50 balance of criticism and also nice things. YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH A FRINGE GROUP OF EXTREMISTS, SORRY.

By the way, there is nothing about the situation in Berkeley with the Marines and that caused the city much bad press. There is nothing about the Code Pink protest in Miami. Even if you write about the Code Pink protest in Miami, I suppose no one will want to be truthful and let the readers know that Posada (who the protest was about) was already tried in Venezuela and found not guilty, but Venezuela has no prohibition against double jeopardy and Chavez himself said Posada does not need another trial because everyone knows he's guilty. That is why the US cannot legally extradite him. But Code Pink claims because Posada is in the US the US harbors terrorists. I am not going to bother to add any of these facts because the editors here have a history of being hell bent on portraying Code Pink with kid gloves. To understand that, just look at the history of this page and you will find, I believe it was Mr. Berkowitz or Schumin who was fawning all over Medea Benjamin when she came and edited the page. Talk about fawning he even verified that it was really her who came by to edit the page herself like it was such a great thing to have this "Celebrity" come here and make additions. Give me a break!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(checking that it's not April 1) Symmetry can be a lovely thing. Thank you for calling down the wrath of the heavens on me for not criticizing certain aspects of Code Pink, about which other editors called down the wrath of the heavens on me for putting sourced criticism of those issues on the page.
To quote you, "It is my position that all of you are so afraid of reality and offending someone that you are afraid to present information because in your eyes there has to be a 50/50 balance of criticism and also nice things.: Apparently, you have not seen the disagreements, but presented in a civil manner by people with the courage to use, at least, screen names, over this very topic. Have you noticed the call for mediation at the top of the page?
Perhaps your complaints about an Orwellian flavor would be better accepted if written in Newspeak.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Potts, C

Please learn to edit headings. has twice inserted, following identification of Midge Potts as a peace activist, the "factual information" that Potts is a "transgendered peace activist". The "factual information" is not sourced.

Even if it were sourced, why is it relevant? Potts presumably has a blood type, and a blood hemoglobin level. Are these more or less relevant than Potts' gender identity, genotype, phenotype and other things normally considered Protected Health Information? If so, how do they relate to politics?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job disguising your editing of the article. The Fact is quoted in the Wiki Midge Potts article, check it out. If its valid there, I assume its the same midge Potts here. The CODEPINK article refers to Midge as "her" thats incorrect, people have a right to know and it add perspective and context to the article. I think it is berkowitz who has some bias, otherwise why delete the fact twice?

Assume? Sounds like OR. Cite a source.
"Her" may be perfectly correct, depending on Potts' state of residence and Potts' own decisions. In many US states, a transgendered individual, usually with supporting medical documentation, often can have a new birth certificate issued.
It is perfectly reasonable editing to ask whether a point is relevant.
Further, why do people "have a right to know"? While Wiki does not censor, Wiki also includes things that are relevant. Of course, I use my real name, while, 24, if I may call you that, seem to have some need to be anonymous. I wonder why? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why refer to the sexual identification matter rather than the individuals armed service career, which is possibly more relevant? If people want to learn about Midge Potts gender assignement they can go to the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Trying to understand 24's thinking, I will ask it again: why is it relevant, more, say, than education, sources of income, military experience, or a complete list of medication taken?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That is what I am asking of 24; what is it about that aspect of Potts that they think is relevant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also mildly interested in what 24 believes I disguised. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand, I would say pointing out one of the activists transgenderism in a "female" article is quite relevant. It certainly speaks volumes as to the inclusiveness of Code Pink and to the multi-faceted level of Code Pink, that's it not just all women. Certainly, it's nothing to warrant a whole paragraph about but as it was, being mentioned in simple passing, it certainly has its own place and doesn't give problems when it comes to WP:WEIGHT. - ALLSTAR echo 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As you may have noticed, the person who does the Code Pink IRS contribution reporting has a male name. At one level, I agree completely that there is value to showing Code Pink is inclusive, and I would think Andrew Heath (IIRC) is a good example of that.
Potts has self-identified as male-to-female transsexual, which may be necessary to explain her connection to military service. Nevertheless, the in-passing mention, adding "a transexual peace activist" after an existing phrase identifying (and Wikilinking) Potts as a peace activist, gives me the flavor of a drive-by derogation. While I have personal issues with Potts' political tactics, I believe gender identity is a personal choice. As I say, were there a paragraph on inclusion -- there already is mention of it -- the comment might fit. Where it is, it seems gratuitous; the anonymous editor's ad hominem comments about "disguising" add credence to my reaction that the insertion was meant in a derogatory way. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that most transgender folk would take issue with you believing it to be a "choice". And whether or not it was done out of malice or added to be derogatory, is it still not factual? Just something to consider.. - ALLSTAR echo 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We miscommunicated on what I meant by "choice" with respect to gender. Let me rephrase: gender identity can only be defined by the individual. If a female feels trapped in a male body, I respect that and don't try to convince them otherwise. I don't regard homosexuality as something to be "cured". My lesbian friends and I exchange very warm hugs, and that's all; I've felt honored when they vouched for me at the local bar.
There's no question that Potts is out as transgendered. The question, in editing any article, is whether a fact adds useful information and context to the article. I have blue eyes, but I saw no reason to mention that on my userpage. Was it Shaw or Wilde that apologized for not having time to make a letter shorter? In like manner, by all means put in relevant factual material, but a good article does not contain irrelevancies. That Potts has served in the military seems much more relevant than her gender identity. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MedCab/Third Opinion

I noticed the request for MedCab case that's been sitting around for a while (there's quite a backlog) and thought I'd offer to help out either as mediator or even less formally to simply give a third opinion. Though in the past I've tried to offer third opinions as neutrally as possible, these are two completely different processes, in a third opinion I would eventually tell you what I thought, whereas as a mediator, I'd simply try to get you to agree on whatever possible, without ever taking any position myself. I've read the case page, reviewed the article and given this page a very cursory glance. Are people willing to mediate? Or would you be more open to me taking a harder look at the details and telling you what I think? As a disclaimer - I am a member of the U.S. Military - as strange as it may sound, I do not believe that affects my opinion in the least (I have friends looking for a fourth tour oversees and friends who sit in senators' offices and get arrested - I am neither of those); however, I completely understand if you don't want me to mediate for that reason. So, I guess the options are 1) Mediate with me, 2) Wait to mediate with someone else, 3) Invite me to give you a third opinion either in conjunction with option 2 or in lieu of mediation altogether. Let me know your thoughts.--Doug.(talk contribs) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug, mediation, to me, often leaves all the parties unhappy, but agreed that no one side is being made unhappier than others. Of course, it's even better if the parties come out believing that accuracy is improved as well as fairness maintained.
It's ironic that within the space of a few minutes, I saw your post, but also reverted an IP edit using what I considered POV language and provided a citation for the IP editor's request for a sourcing the group's play on the Homeland Security color codes. Now, let me make my disclosures, which I also do not consider a significant COI. Again, ironies. I never supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although I am not opposed to the existence or operations of the US military as such. Overall, I believe the President misled the Congress in seeking the AUMF against Iraq, and has, in other areas, flouted the Constitution sufficiently to meet the necessarily political definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. That being said, I believe Code Pink's tactics are getting in the way of what they claim to want, and are not a positive contribution to the political process.
If you know Finley Peter Dunne's character Mr. Dooley, a fictional political commentator, Dooley observed, properly I believe, "politics ain't beanball." Just as I do not think it is unreasonable to cite Constitutional violations at the White House level, I do not think it is unreasonable to identify:
  • The nature of Code Pink's financing and tax status
  • The fact that they engender hatred from parts of the US political system, as well as being supported by other parts.
I believe Daniel and I disagree on the appropriateness of including what indeed are hateful criticism of Code Pink, which still have been said by public figures. Daniel, if I represent his position accurately, feels that it is OR or synthesis on my part to have followed up on the financial allegations of opponents of Code Pink, and cited Code Pink's (or, more precisely, its funding organization) financial disclosures required by law.
I have made it clear that I think very little of George W. Bush, Code Pink, and Hugo Chavez. Nevertheless, I do not believe my stated personal opinions are leading to biased or original research. Perhaps the relevant Mr. Dooley observation about following criticism to factual material is "Trust everybody, but cut the cards." There's something very encyclopedic there. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
An addition: Daniel, elsewhere on the talk page, says "You can't just link enraged commentary as sources and write that CodePink engenders irrational rage among the populace. I also think you need a source that is a practicing psychologist writing in his or her field of expertise for something like that." I observed that no such sourcing is needed for the fact of the confrontation with Rice being confrontational. It shows balance that there is no demand for justification that a committee chairman had the right to have protesters refused, or to document that Congressional proceedings have long been interpreted as having free speech only for official business, not demonstrations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fine with me if you mediate, Doug. I think what Howard says about my positions a paragraph above is accurate about some specific things we disputed, but doesn't include the number one problem in my view that the article is overloaded and warped by a massive "Criticisms" section that is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It makes me wonder if we should have a "Praise" section as well, but I don't think that would be encyclopedic either.
If you want to mediate on one thing to start you off, please have a look at how Tierney is used in the article, at one point to provide 200-words of vitriolic criticism "anti-everything about America" (his italics) etc., and then at another point to provide figures and facts about CodePink funding. I believe that the extended criticism is wholly inappropriate and unencyclopedic, that perhaps Tierney is not notable enough to be featured for any criticism at all, and that Tierney's foaming-at-the-lips tone renders him a thoroughly unreliable source for financial data for CodePink (and besides that above I identified an instance where Tierney appears to misstate a reference). Howard replied (somewhere above) that Tierney has an arguably impressive resume and is an educator.
The financial section (currently at the bottom of criticism, where I moved it some time ago when it was in a somewhat different state and because it relied on Tierney) is substantially a product of original research on the part of Howard IMO. If we are going to have a section on CodePink's finances I would like it drawn from a reliable source like a newspaper article specifically or in part about CodePink's finances, not largely supported by clearly right-wing ideological sources, and not knitted together from this and that like we are writing the article ourselves either. Happy to have you try and good luck! DanielM (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, it will take me a little while to clarify the two positions, so verbosely set out here, maybe you could both summarize in one or two sentences so I at least have my bearings. Also, we can do this here or at the MedCab case (reduces clutter but harder for others to find) but either way, someone really needs to archive this page. At least a good chunk of it. :-)--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1) The article is overloaded with unencyclopedic criticism that should be trimmed by about 75% (WP:WEIGHT). 2) The 200-some words of quoted criticism accorded to Tierney should be trimmed or deleted because he is non-notable (WP:WEIGHT), additionally he should not be used as a source for financial data because he is not a reliable source (WP:RS, WP:V). DanielM (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Edited this comment only to add supporting references in parentheses. DanielM (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article again, I just realized that the source of the key financial information is only visible in edit mode; I have corrected the footnote, [30] at the moment, just below Code Pink#Categorizations of CodePink funding. My fervent apologies if not making the actual source more obvious led to confusion.
That source is not Tierney, Perazzo, or any right- or left-wing organization, but IRS-required public reporting on Code Pink from the apparently neutral, commercial website, of, which appears to be a data broker about nonprofits. Code Pink itself is not the 501(c)(3) organization, but an umbrella funding organization called ETINA. Andrew Beath, about whom I know nothing other than the data at ETINA and Earthways, does seem to be the person with financial responsibility, reporting to the IRS. Beath's personal foundation is This organization describes its mission as "Natural Resources Conservation and Protection". It describes ETINA as one of the projects it started. ETINA describes itself as a nonprofit under IRS 501(c)(3), and Code Pink is one of ETINA's projects.
Did I get the idea to search public records from reading a politicized source? Yes. I deny, however, searching for public records that I know are required is OR. That the idea to look for such statements came from a hate-filled right-wing source is no more OR than if the information came from a hate-filled left-wing source. The information itself is from a reputable source. I see looking for a data base of public records to be no more OR than it would be to know that I should use MEDLINE to look for an article in a peer-reviewed journal.
Now, the following statement, without sourcing, is OR, although easily verifiable. 501(c)(3) organizations are expected to stay largely apolitical, with the loophole of education. 501(c)(4) organizations may make political comment, but not endorse candidates, and still be deductible. 527 organizations can endorse, are considered nonprofit, but are not tax-deductible. I carefully did not state, in the article itself, that Code Pink is a highly political organization whose actions might be allowable under 501(c)(4), but not 501(c)(3).Howard C. Berkowitz (talk)

As far as Tierney being non-notable, please follow the reference in that section to the Human Events article. "Mr. Tierney is the Walter Kohler Professor of International Relations at the Institute of World Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based graduate school. He is author of "The Politics of Peace," published last year by Capital Research Center."
Code Pink#Activities may speak for itself, but I'd say, by eye, that there is considerably more statement of political positions of Code Pink than their is of criticism of them. To me, the statement of positions can indeed be met with criticism...and personally, a pox on both their houses. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I get the gist. Let's move this to MedCab and please archive a good chunk of this page. --Doug.(talk contribs) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference of anyone else, so you don't have to go back to the banner at the top, this discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04_Code_Pink, with more information at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04_Code_Pink.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation failed about finance section and Tierney criticism, others please have a look

The mediation between me and Hcberkowitz failed, as I decided to withdraw today [2]. I care a lot about the CodePink article but I'm not planning to edit the parts about finances and the 200-some words of quoted criticism accorded to John Tierney (the subjects of mediation) I would ask that other editors have a look at those. DanielM (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to play right-wrong here, but I think the Tierney issue was poisoning the general discussion. Other than tangentially as a source of a starting point, Tierney was not an aspect of the mediation, which focused on the financial information.
Daniel and I have different interpretations of both WP:V and WP:RS, about which people can disagree in good faith. I have asked for comment on the RS noticeboard. I suppose my position is that as long as an individual fact is verifiable by independent sources, it meets WP:V. Implicit in that is the original fact may come from a source that, by itself, would not meet WP:RS. This is much like the legal argument that any information derived from illegally collected evidence is inadmissible.
I disagree that legal model should be definitive. In the sciences and other fields of study such as the analysis of political or national systems, it is quite common to find a piece of information in a thoroughly POV source, such as political propaganda. If, however, that piece of information can be correlated with multiple reliable sources, the specific information becomes verifiable and reliable, although the original source is not generally reliable.
In this specific case, the specific piece that came from the questionable source was the name of the foundation from which Code Pink gets its tax-exempt tax status, and also which partially funds Code Pink. With that name, it was possible to find information in published tax records, and, eventually, on a Code Pink site that asked checks to be made out jointly to the foundation (ETINA) and Code Pink.
I really won't be offended if someone trims Tierney to the bone, or just paraphrases there is vitriolic right-wing criticism of Code Pink's often-vitriolic left-wing criticism. Actually, I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde's characterization of fox hunting as the "pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable".
I am more than willing to accept heavy editing of right-wing criticism, but I am not willing to say that the chain of information leading to, for example, Code Pink's source of tax-exempt status. It would be OR of me to put any statements into the article regarding the validity of that status. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to a question by Howard at the mediation page, I do not believe this rises to the level of Arbitration, however, you guys may want to try the Mediation Committee for a more experienced and more available mediator. Sorry I couldn't be there constantly and keep up with all the ever flowing discussion. I wanted this to work out. You both may want to take a look at WP:WEASEL as you go forward and consider the role of criticism in an article about a group. Also keep in mind, and I had forgotten this until now, that certain aspects of WP:BLP apply a higher standard to organizations as well as individuals. Check it out and let me know directly if you have questions (on my talk page). Thanks and sorry again.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One last try

Again, I ask the assumption of good faith. I just made changes, in the interest of consensus, that try to address the core concerns raised by Daniel. Obviously, I don't believe they are ideal, since I would not have written the original versions if I had believed something was better.

The financial information is more important than the rhetoric. Since there is a Code Pink web solicitation that points back to ETINA, and ETINA then can be found at, I am using the Code Pink solicitation as the entry point to a chain of statements. Can everyone live with this? I deny any attempt to violate WP:OR and WP:POV in searching out information that might be derogatory. My original chain, I believe, was more accurate, but a commenter on the WP:RS talk page suggested, mixing a few metaphors with pragmatism, burning down the tree from which the poisoned fruit came.

I also asked for advice at the Military History Project, which may sound strange -- other than I work a good deal in open source intelligence, where it is a perfectly acceptable thing to start with propaganda as long as specific information can be verified. This commenter suggested that while that might work well when the readership is used to the methodology, but, in other contexts, the validated fact might then be misused to claim the original flawed site is reputable. Given that reason, I broke what could be a reverse chain that might be misinterpreted.

As far as the rhetoric, I cut back to a minimal description of what two conservatives said. There have been notability questions about Tierney; I will only say, unless there is further question, that he has legitimate academic and government credentials. It seemed important to me that there be an indication of the reaction of intensity of some of the Code Pink statements, which are still in the article, can trigger. Nevertheless, I'm willing to leave out the text, since if anyone wants the exact language, the citations are there.

People can both agree and disagree and be in good faith. I have disclosed that I regard Code Pink, George Bush and Hugo Chavez to be detriments to peace and the correction of political wrongs. Starhawk, recognized as a leader in Code Pink, will remain a spiritual guide for me, an area in which I hold her in extreme respect -- but I disagree with her politics.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If Starhawk is your spiritual guide I feel sorry for you. Have you actually read any of her anti-Semitic diatribes on her website? No wonder why you want anything that portrays Code Pink in a negative light watered down. The only one here who has a POV is you Howard.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Starhawk is an authority on neopaganism; lots of religious leaders say idiotic things outside their own spirituality. Did you read that I disagree with her politics? I'll discuss my beliefs further when you show enough confidence in yours to at least use a pseudonym, rather than drive-by theorizing on my motivations from the anonymity of an IP address. If you find one anti-semitic word from me, let me know.
Further, I am rather amused that I have gone to a failed mediation because Daniel felt, in a civil manner, that I was posting material unfairly critical of Code Pink. If your criticism is that I am trying to reduce critical of Code Pink, I must be doing something right by taking a balanced path. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Howard, I faulted you for egregious, pervasive violations of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT, and made no comments that I recall as to "fairness" of the specific criticism you quoted at extreme length, which you yourself stated was "vitriol." Just because you're criticized from both sides, even if that were the case, doesn't mean you're doing something right, either. DanielM (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, we have different interpretations of the WP policies you mention, and never got far enough in mediation to get an independent opinion of your accusations. In the immediate case, there are accusations being made, at the other end of the ideological spectrum, from yours, which I find somewhat amusing. I would observe that some of Code Pink's comments also can reasonably be described as vitriolic, although there is somewhat more latitude in quoting the subject of an article.
It is interesting that you ignore the comments, both ideological and also violating Wiki policies on personal attacks, presumably including determinations of another editor, who is not willing to be accountable enough to use a pseudonym.
Perhaps the thing to be observed here is how the tactics of Code Pink and its right-wing counterpart polarizes, even further, a overly polarized political process. Don't expect me to take your suggestions of "egregious" conduct seriously when you would not even stay in informal mediation. You also completely ignored a good-faith effort I made to remove what content offending you that I could still remove in keeping with my own sense of editorial integrity. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I faulted you on Wikipedia rules, not ideology. There's plenty of ideological criticism there that I don't have a problem with. I have put critical perspective of CodePink in myself. Please just leave me out of your quarrels with anonymous IPs. DanielM (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems only fair then, that if you are going to make ex cathedra judge and jury statements that I am in violation of rules -- which I deny -- third party opinions should be solicited. I attempted to meet you considerably by cutting back on material that I honestly believe is fair and accurate in the article, but you keep speaking, apparently without any room for doubt, of my egregious violations.
At this point, I'm inclined to take Code Pink off my watchlist and let you all squabble in your own ways. Wikipedia is unlikely to approach any balance or truth in this. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the criticism of its tax-exempt status is completely irrelevant to the article itself. Please remove and STOP SQUABBLING. There's less criticism on the Blackwater page than there is on this one. It's completely childish and unprofessional. Do not punish the readers with your microscopic sort of criticism. Please note the top of the page says "Neutral point of view". TheMadChild (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I happen to think that a simple statement of the tax-exempt status, about which readers can draw their own conclusions about the legality thereof, is quite pertinent. No one is stopping you from removing it, but I would consider it dishonest and unethical for me to remove it. Before you commit to it being irrelevant, you might want to look at the 501(c)(3) versus 501(c)(4) versus 527 rules for political activity by non-profit organizations.
I have no idea what you mean by "microscopic sort of criticism". As far as I am concerned, I have been diligent in NPOV; I don't think one can get much more neutral than tax filing reports. Others, however, appear to consider any criticism, or even suggestion of criticism, of Code Pink as POV. Calling it childish, drawing irrelevant analogies to Blackwater, etc., are hardly assuming good faith. Perhaps not at the top of the page, but I suggest, if you wish to cite WP policy, you read the one about "no personal attacks". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the issues with respect to this page is very simple. The problem is that a page on Code Pink presents Point of View issues because the group is designed to do stupid stunts to get attention and because its leaders have said and done some really stupid things. So, when you have a group who primarily will do ANYTHING to get attention, you will have a lot of stupid stunts. So, if you mention the stupid stunts, it appears you are coming from a point of view, when in fact you are just detailing a history of the organization. The criticism section should stay as is mostly, but it should not be entitled criticism. It is a valid history of the group. Moreover, a group is ran by its leadership which sets a groups policies. So any statements of Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan or Jodi Evans should be fair game. Your whole problem is that you think the page should be half good and half bad. What you fail to see is that you cannot have that when you have a group that is designed to simply do stupid stunts to get media attention. They sit in the back at Congressional hearings and call other members on their cell phones to make sure they are being seen on C-Span. They act up to get attention. So, you cannot have a situation where half the page makes them look good and half makes them look bad. They make themselves look bad and the most accurate way to detail them is to tell their story completely and most of it will not make them look good and it should not do so. It should be honest and it should honestly detail the group's history, leaders and finances. If Howard had his way it would not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If the preceding comment wasn't so bloody funny, I'd call it a personal attack, but I've heard far more scathing attacks from Monty Python. "If Howard had his way it would not"...? I thought I was the main person contributing on finance, and that caused a considerable uproar that I was being too harsh on Code Pink. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting references to the "Daily Show"s hilarious hoaxing of Code Pink in their 'Marines in Berkeley' episode? Available at: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC) March, 2008 'The Daily Show' sent ex-marine Ron Riggle to interview Code Pink protestors and Berkeley residents. Sometimes he wore patently phony '60's-era hippie garb. All those interviewed were portrayed as shallow, narcissistic, self-contradictory posers. The segment remains one of the most popular on the Daily Show website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Daily show stuff is clearly not in itself notable, should we add the information to every page on a topic that has been sent up by the Daily Show? With the stuff about the tax the issue is not so much the neutrality of the criticism but its notability, rather then coming up with a site you see as backing your criticisms you need to find a notable source that makes those criticisms.--JK the unwise (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not notable to you; though all these references to shows which cast them in a favorable light seem to be worthy of note. And the Daily Show is cited in other articles when the posters like the coverage, such as their sort of favorable Obama coverage. Well carry on with the censorship.

What tax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan and interventionalism in general

I have heard that they are not just anti-Iraq war protesters, but also protest against the war in Afghanistan. I have seen code pink members advocating that the military should only be on U.S. soil and that all troops should be withdrawn from foreign countries. Contralya (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Code Pink Founder Jodi Evans Says Nothing Wrong With Communism and She Admires Hugo Chavez and Bin Laden Had a Reason for 9/11

When are all of you who believe that Code Pink should be given a free pass going to wise up about what this groups really is about. I suggest that you check out this link for the Jodi Evans radio interview with a University of Kansas host.

Here is the link to part 1

Here is the link to part 2

Here is another one

I wonder why that famously public domain photo of Chavez, Benjamin, Sheehan and Evans is not on the Code Pink page. Tell me, if I upload it will it stay or will it be taken down by everyone who wants to do Code Pink's PR.

wikipedia is not a forum for discussing your political beliefs. Please Refrain from using it as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Title "Secret Service Encounter at McCain" date 07-08-08

Title "Bush Heckled" (Details how they got press passes and has photos of the fake passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talkcontribs) 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Drop Neutrality Disputed Banner?

Aside from the odd anonymous IP stopping by now and then to replace the article with "F**K CODE PINK!!!!" and worse, there's not much quarreling recently about the neutrality. The one guy said he wanted to cover the Daily Show's prank in which they sent a correspondent "undercover" in garish pseudo-hippy garb (tie-dyes, wig, colored round glasses etc.) and edited together some of the more clueless comments said by Pink protesters. I found it to be truly sophomoric and schoolyard nyaah-nyaah-laugh-at-stupid-protesters humor. Perhaps it's sort of notable that it indicates a divide between the mainstream left exemplified by Jon Stewart's successful TV show and CodePink's unconventional approach. The prank coverage became sort of well-known in the blogosphere. Perhaps it is appropriate to discuss it in the article briefly and objectively, then take down the banner. Anyone? DanielM (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I'll be totally honest it still doesn't feel bonified NPOV. That said, I don't think it warrants a banner anymore, so I support removing the banner. My main issue is that the Walter Reed Medical Center criticism feels watered down, the entire opening to the section is not criticism at all, but rather Code Pink's explanation of the entire event. Only afterward do we even get to the actual criticism. Agree that both parts should be in there, but shouldn't the actual criticism come before the response? Anyways it is alot better than it was a while back, vote for remove banner. (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever changed the Walter Reed criticism section, it actually reads like a criticism while still providing the opposing Code Pink view. (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Surprised at all

This article still reads like a code pink recruitment ad. Any article that portrays code pink in an unflattering light is unbelievably watered down. I won't waste my time editing this, however. I could cite a millions articles and even have a prominent code pink member stab a member of the military until they were dead and still this article would read like a puff piece. Is that really what wikipedia is for? IT IS ON THIS ARTICLE. I logged in to check the progress of this entry after looking up the "bridge to nowhere", which of course was riddled with NPOV passing itself off as POV because "facts" are viewed as "POV" these days to some people, I guess. You don't need to link a Michelle Malkin or Bill O'Reilly rant to get some negative stuff on these people, but it still will not last long at all.Gamegrid (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)