Talk:Code Pink
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Code Pink article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5. |
Left-wing
editJTA: "Code Pink is a left-wing advocacy group critical of U.S. foreign policy, including its support of Israel."
The Guardian: "It has also broadened its interests to pro-green policies, action in support of Palestinian civil rights and other largely left-wing issues around the world."
I can find other sources supporting the label, if you want. On the other hand, "progressive" is not mentioned anywhere, just pure original research.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't write that I wanted any sources. I was content to leave it as you had reverted it. However, I came back to this Talk page because I left a comment yesterday and discovered a moment ago that you weren't satisfied, perhaps with simply removing the term "progressive" and replacing it with "left wing" that you favored, and felt a need to further justify it. So, I Googled the words "Code Pink," and "progressive." The first hit I got was from the "right wing" Washington Examiner :-)
So, let me suggest this. How about you and I drop both modifiers and we leave it simply as "an NGO" and you can submit it to see if there is a consensus of other editors favoring one term or the other, or none at all? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-throws-out-conviction-for-code-pink-activist-arrested-after-laughing-during-jeff-sessions-confirmation/article/2628748 Lastly, here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article: Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[7] The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century,[citation needed] usually with disparaging intent, and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views. 04:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)A Washington judge on Friday threw out the conviction of a protester who was arrested after laughing during Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Senate confirmation hearing in January. Desiree Fairooz, 61, was attending the hearing with other members of the progressive activist group Code Pink when she laughed loudly after Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said that Sessions' record of "treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented."
Which country(ies) is Code Pink from?
editBecause Code Pink's expressed mission is about opposing the actions of a specific country, it matters whether the organization is from or was founded by people principally from that country or a different one. I think the opening paragraph should say flat-out what country Code Pink is from or else say that it is not from any specific country. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Support for China
editThe article contains a section on China which is mainly about Jodie Evans' views on China. I recently rewrote the following sentence which contained synthesis and did not accurately reflect the source:
- After her marriage to Singham in 2017, who provided 25% of the organization's funding since then, she has been a strong supporter of China.
The sentence was based on four separate sources in the NYT. These are:
- Until a few years ago, she readily criticized China’s authoritarian government. “We demand China stop brutal repression of their women’s human rights defenders,” she wrote on Twitter in 2015.
- In 2017, Mr. Singham married Jodie Evans, a former Democratic political adviser and the co-founder of Code Pink.
- Since 2017, about a quarter of Code Pink’s donations — more than $1.4 million — have come from two groups linked to Mr. Singham,
- Ms. Evans now stridently supports China. She casts it as a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war.
The problems as I see them are:
- The NYT does not say Singham provided 25% of the organization's since 2017. It says the funding is from groups connected to him.
- The NYT does not say Evans has been a strong supporter of China since her marriage. It does not directly connect her marriage to what it describes as a change in her attitude. It says she "now stridently supports China", i.e. in 2023.
I have rewritten the sentence by breaking it into separate parts as contained in the source. Burrobert (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Pinging
editPinging @Professor Penguino. I made some changes to your recent revision and am happy to ping you as requested. I think it's fine to change it away from "support," but "coverage" seems not quite right as the alternative. I have further revised it to "political positions regarding" JArthur1984 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate it. And thanks for pinging. Best regards, Professor Penguino (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- The changes you made definitely work better. I am much obliged! Professor Penguino (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
RS exist beyond the NYT
edit@Avatar317 I have reverted your edit which incorrectly claims that NYT is RS whereas the sources I used are not.
- Al Jazeera and The Hindu are WP:RSP.
- A statement by Singham in The Hindu is not an opinion article, but is a direct call out of journalistic failures on NYT's part by the person directly affected. I recommend that you reflect on what it means when a Newspaper of Record publishes a statement with no additional clarification or comment from their editor.
- The very first line of WP:BLP says
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page
. - The Nation is another WP:RSP that has criticized NYT's report.
Please get consensus here instead of edit warring.
I encourage you to read the sources provided next time. I also recommend that you look at what WP:RSP is not. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- None of the two RS's you list (Al Jazeera and the Nation) mention "Code Pink", so those sources are not relevant to THIS article, and the Hindu source is SINGHAM's OPINION, not usable for anything other than his opinion. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Overall, there is an inordinate amount of Singham focus in this article. Use of the criticized NYT piece invites the need to include responses, especially given the nature of BLP. We certainly can't have the criticized NYT article in the lead without responses. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the Washington Examiner / American Enterprise Institute source as unreliable. Frankly it's bad enough we're using NYT for this stuff without bringing in the anticommunist league. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)