Talk:Code Pink/Archive 1

message: 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 18.87.1.114 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Scooter Libby

message: What are war toys?
-DrAlbertHofmann  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.76.228.3 (talk • contribs) .
::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)
replies: text: Precisely.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, especially, toy weapons. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Toys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. ActiveSelective 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection lifted 

message: 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 68.77.241.31 (talk • contribs) .
: Do you have citations for this? - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIASED 

message: 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 205.213.208.42 (talk • contribs) .
:Again, if you have citations for this, put it in the article with citations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEOPLE WITH AN AGENDA 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The more things change, the less they are this wiki article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is a Poor Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms are Deleted 

message: Wouldn't it be better to move the criticisms about the venezuelan President to "his" article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.186.73 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critic about Hugo Chavez 

message: 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 69.37.244.24 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critic about Hugo Chavez 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WHAT THE EDITORS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT CODE PINK 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Stunt"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Afghanistan and interventionalism in general 

message: 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   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O758gyZqxlw
Here is the link to part 2   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5dSWfl331U
Here is another one   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-v8OVzpajQ
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 70.134.98.201 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code Pink Founder Jodi Evans Says Nothing Wrong With Communism and She Admires Hugo Chavez and Bin Laden Had a Reason for 9/11 

message: Title "Secret Service Encounter at McCain" date 07-08-08
http://codepinkdc.blogspot.com/2008/07/secret-service-encounter-at-mccain.html
Title "Bush Heckled" (Details how they got press passes and has photos of the fake passes.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/4/161948/5353  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REFERENCES FOR BOGUS PRESS CREDENTIALS OF CODE PINK

message: 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)
replies: text: Kudos to whoever changed the Walter Reed criticism section, it actually reads like a criticism while still providing the opposing Code Pink view. 220.70.250.166 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop Neutrality Disputed Banner? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Surprised at all