Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink

We'll discuss this here, if that's OK with everyone; please make sure all parties have acknowledged acceptance on the case page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was ongoing at Talk:Code_Pink when the mediator arrived and there is substantial discussion there.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Begin discussion

Let's try to break this down into itsy bitsy pieces:

1. User:DanielM, now that User:Hcberkowitz has clarified the source of the tax data, are you still contesting the data under WP:V? Just the data now, not what Hcberkowitz has done with it, one issue at a time please.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say "tax data" here, not "funding data," so I guess you are breaking out the tax data piece. The part about CodePink's tax exemption number is sourced to the CodePink website, and I don't question that data. The only other part that references taxes (it begins "According to the parent nonprofit’s tax form...") is sourced to a John Tierney article, and I do question that data. WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." IMO Tierney fails the first part (reputation for fact checking and accuracy) and the second part (Tierney's view is of a tiny minority). Now, you have to be careful, because elsewhere in the section the website Taxexemptworld.com is referenced, however it refers to ETINA not CodePink. In other words, the relevance of that source leans on a framework (the CodePink-ETINA relationship) developed elsewhere in the section. It has no relevance to CodePink on its own. I don't question the data of Taxexemptworld.com in and of itself however. Hope I am being clear in this response to your question. DanielM (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can, let's stay on the data alone, not Tierney, and how marginal he may or may not be. I'll mention, only in passing, that there have been much more vitriolic statements made to the article or talk page, and I've done my share of deleting them. I'd appreciate if you assume good faith on my part, in that I am going to public records and not depending on ideologues. References to the "parent organization tax form" refer to taxemptworld.com; Tierney never presents the actual tax forms to which I refer. First, let's establish the Code Pink relationship to ETINA. See http://www.aboutus.org/Etina.org, which containst the text:

"Etina is the umbrella organization for several activist and environmental groups: Burma Humanitarian Mission, Ballona Wetlands, 1000 Flowers, and Code Pink 4 Peace."

This is the first half of demonstrating a relationship between ETINA and Code Pink. Note, further, that Andrew Heath is given as the point of contact for ETINA, and his name is also on the 501(c)(3) report at taxexemptworld.com.

As the second piece of the cross-check, to Code Pink claiming a relationship to ETINA, see https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/codepink/shop/custom.jsp, which contains the text

"Use this simple and secure form to make your donation. If you prefer to donate by check please make it payable to CODEPINK/ETINA and mail it to 2010 Linden Ave Venice, CA 90291.

"We are a 501-C3 org and your contribution is tax deductible. Our tax exemption number is: 95-4658841"

I'm not completely sure what you mean by differentiating between tax and funding. It is my understanding, and I can ask my housemate who has her own 501(c)(3) for assisting people with disabilities, that all organizations subordinate to the 501(c)(3) must also include their revenues in the 501(c)(3) account. For example, she has a subsidiary that raises funds through selling handmade herbal soaps, and that subsidiary has to include its revenue in the revenue reported by the parent. So, if Code Pink is, for tax reasons, using ETINA's 501(c)(3) certification, it would seem that there is no difference between funding and taxation. Code Pink asks checks to be made out to CODEPINK/ETINA, which would suggest they are one organization as far as the IRS is concerned.

It will take me longer, if you need to see that, to get the specific rules from IRS, and, if relevant, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. My own feeling is that the two citations above show a continuous chain between the ETINA/Andrew Heath reporting to the IRS, and Code Pink. I don't know if buying the additional report from taxexemptworld.com would say how much ETINA gives to Code Pink, or the amount of the donations (as requested by CODEPINK) written to CODEPINK/ETINA. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A little more detail after reviewing the funding section of the article. Tierney is never sourced under Code Pink#Categorizations of CodePink funding. The sources in that section are, as of 05:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC), [30]-[34]. 34, the last entry, is indeed from a right wing source. The others are either from taxexemptworld.com [30], or, variously, Code Pink or ETINA. Perhaps there is some confusion from footnote [29] in the previous section, which, frankly, doesn't need to be there any longer. It does refer to a funding related article from a right-wing source, but it is Perazzo, not Tierney. It would be inappropriate to delete the Perazzo link while this is being discussed, if only because it would throw off the numbering.

If it's any help, http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=881 is arguably a left-wing source, which says, in its caption, "tracking the money behind conservative media." The specific link I give here talks about the funding of the Institute of World Politics, which employs Tierney. I'm not trying to get into Tierney, his notability, or anything regarding him at this point, but simply establishing that both the left and right (e.g., David Horowitz's Discoverthenetworks.org, a website billing itself as a "guide to the political left" [33]) watch one anothers' financing. I see it as good sourcing to provide an apparently neutral (taxexemptworld.com), left-wing (mediatransparency.org) and right-wing (discoverthenetworks.com)). Perazzo [29] refers to funding in the cite, but the Perazzo link could be deleted, at this point, as superfluous.

May I suggest a rereading by Daniel and Doug to verify what I thought I wrote, and whether Tierney is even involved in the actual text about funding? Maybe something in the funding section is confusing me, but I don't see Tierney as cited in the current text, or any text changed since the start of mediation. Tierney's animus to Code Pink and his notability are separate issues; I'd hate to have a section confused merely because a preceding section has a strongly opinionated quote.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request regarding Code Pink page

May I suggest that until mediation is complete, the involved editors refrain from adding material to the Code Pink article, unless it directly relates to the issues being mediated? For example, I did edit a citation that was not showing that something from taxexemptworld.com, which seemed fair. Bringing in new material (e.g., the Berkeley recruiting matter) while there still appear to be disagreements generally regarding balance seems something that could wait until there is more consensus. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard, perhaps it should be the other way around, that you should stop editing on the subjects being mediated, as I have, in order to provide a fixed rather than flowing state for the mediator to consider? And that non-controversial edits unrelated to the subject of mediation can continue? DanielM (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't stop anyone from editing, but I'd suggest that Daniel is probably right, as long as the edits don't involve the same WP:V issues we are discussing here there is no reason to stop. When we're done here, hopefully we'll have some conclusions and we can fix the article in a way you both agree to. By the way, Daniel, in response to your comments on the main case page, I won't decide anything here. I will try to help you two (and the other involved editors if they ever show up) come to a decision between yourselves. It is handy to keep the stuff that we're discussing fairly stable while we talk about it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Daniel, I have deliberately made no substantive change. The only change I have made is when I realized that while nonprofitworld.com was clearly present in the raw edit mode citation, it was not appearing in the reference on the formatted page. I made the minimum change to be sure that the source, not the title, appeared under "References". I challenge you to find anything else I have done to the Code Pink funding section that would make it flowing. In my responses to Doug, I referred to footnote numbers as of a given point in time; I did not, for example, delete the probably overtaken-by-events Perazzo cite because that would have changed the numbering.

Correct me if I mis-state, Doug, but I believed you suggested we move one step at a time, and we were discussing, as a first step, a part of the finances section. In the broader context of the article, however, I'm afraid I find the question of balance and what is "non-controversial" to be a significant difference between Daniel and myself. Were I to make any comment here beyond noting that I do not necessarily agree that an addition, outside the financial section, is not non-controversial to me and why, it would be a distraction.

I'm afraid I am getting a sense of being accused, by Daniel, of bad faith. The criticisms of some of my work go off into Wikilawyering, rather than simply asking clarifying questions. It is probably fair to say that Daniel and I have a different idea of WP:OR, WP:V, [[WP:WEIGHT] and WP:POV. In an earlier exchange on the talk page, Daniel made what I consider a genuinely sincere comment (from memory) that if I stopped doing things that he considered violations of OR and V, "I still had much to offer Wikipedia". If, however, my interpretation is against the WP consensus, I won't go away mad, but, if I cannot write in a manner that meets my personal standards of intellectual honesty and of objective editing, I will find a different venue where my particular approach is more appropriate. This is not meant as any kind of threat or tantrum, but an honest desire to get a reality check on certain standards of editing. Examples serve better than pages on OR or verifiability, and if I conclude that my standards of editing anything I sign cannot comply with the consensus standard, it is better that I not contribute. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. I did not accuse you of bad faith. I can't believe you say I am "wikilawyering" when you saw fit to engage in extended debate about the use of the word "stunt" to describe the woman with the pink political t-shirt angling to get in the camera's view during congressional testimony. DanielM (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really, really, not trying to fight about this, but what I meant by "wikilawyering" was our different perceptions of OR, V, WEIGHT, NOTE and POV. Again, might we try to see if the information I gave on the source of financial data is acceptable? AFAIK, I have no current references to Tierney with respect to finance. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we get back, then, to the finances section?

Can we try, then, simply to clarify whether there is a remediable disagreement on the provenance and linkages of financial information I believe relevant and verifiable? I believe that was what Doug was asking, and I don't believe it was answered. The mediation-related part may have been my fault if it was not clear that my detailed response was on the "discussion" page of this mediation article (or whatever term is best--not the "article" page). Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cool down guys

This is moving way to fast for me, I'm on a lot but I can hardly keep up and you seem to insist on writing a page to debate the answers to my questions. This is supposed to be a place to come to agreement, writing paragraphs upon paragraphs is not going to help us get there. Can we do this, can I ask questions and then you two each give a short response in which you emphasize policy arguments, and then I'll ask another question. I'm sorry, that I'm so slow with this. I can't afford the time to spend it all reading though.  :-) Thanks.

So, the question again is are we good with the tax data, not how it's used, not any commentary on it, just the data?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• And I think Daniel's answer was "Yes" with the proviso that it be clear that it isn't actually Code Pink's tax data but what I believe the IRS calls a "blanket letter of determination" covering Code Pink as some sort of affiliate (and we'd have to talk about how to characterize that relationship). Is that correct?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

With the 501(c)(3) with which I work, the subsidiary, for tax purposes, isn't separate in IRS eyes as long as it uses the parent's tax exemption number, or comingles funds. Code Pink's request to have checks made out to CODEPINK/ETINA would seem prima facie evidence of comingling. I believe Code Pink calls itself a 501(c)(3) in some of its webpages, but, so far, there is no evidence that it obtained that status on its own. There also does not seem to be free public non-ideological records of how the income from other foundations, cited by Code Pink, is allocated. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:53, 23 February 200

I said I don't quarrel with Taxexemptworld.com's tax data. However Tierney is used for the tax data as well, see paragraph three of the funding section. It says "Code Pink currently claims more than 250 chapters worldwide, from Norway to India and Costa Rica. According to the parent nonprofit’s tax form, Code Pink is run on a shoestring budget -- $130,028 in 2004. According to John Tierney, who writes very critically about CodePink, a search of philanthropic databases reveals that it received $12,000 from the Tides Foundation (2003), $5,000 from the Barbra Streisand Foundation (2004) and $5,000 from the New Priorities Foundation (2005)." With the exception of the "according to" portion, which I think I later inserted, this was all taken verbatim from Tierney by Howard [1][2]. If the tax data that is sourced to Tierney is deleted, and only Taxexemptworld.com's tax data remains, I will be good with the tax data. DanielM (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is the third sentence of the third paragraph that is the only problem, I am a bit reluctantly agreeable to deleting that. I don't have it in front of me, but I thought the chapters in the first sentence also came from CODE PINK, and the second sentence is about one year of IRS form. If the form is on Taxemptworld and confirms Tierney, I'm hesitant to throw away everything Tierney has said, which are verifiable things, simply because he has said them and they agree with other sources. The numbers from the other foundations are not essential.

Are you willing to accept the CODE PINK-ETINA relationship as given on their solicitation, on the aboutus webpage about ETINA claiming CODE PINK as a project? To me, that's pretty non-negotiable and thoroughly documented by ETINA, CODEPINK, and Taxexemptworld. It bothers me a little that because Tierney is vitriolic, he's treated as a liar, but that Code Pink statements or ETINA statements in their name are not getting such scrutiny. I offered material on Tierney's organizational funding. Nevertheless, CODE PINK's own material cites it as 501(c)(3), but, as far as I read the reports, that's really through ETINA.

Let me try to be clear; I'm about to go to bed and may not be writing clearly. The actual dollar figure isn't critical as far as I'm concerned, but the ETINA, CODE PINK, and who has the 501(c)(3) is critical. Does Taxexempt.com and the CODEPINK/ETINA check request satisfy you that financially, they are operating as one organization, and presumably need to comply with 501(c)(3) rules as long as they claim that status? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep things simpler, as the mediator suggested, we should probably continue to break out and discuss the tax data verifiability piece. It is the second sentence of the third paragraph that references tax data; it specifically refers to data from a "tax form." If indeed you are willing to delete that I'd invite you to go ahead. The other stuff you refer to hasn't been mediated yet. The funding data might be the next logical thing to discuss. IMO calling into question Tierney's use as a source under WP:V doesn't constitute treating him "as a liar." DanielM (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be making some progress. I went to the article and struck out the sentence in question, and one other from Tierney that isn't critical without much broader financial data.

My suggestion is that while mediation is in progress, we use strikeouts rather than deletion. If references are added, I'd propose some temporary inline note that doesn't change the existing footnote numbering, such as (url=http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=881, title=Recipient Grants: Institute of World Politics) That example, incidentally, is reported by a group that monitors "the money behind conservative media", and the specific entry is for the (accredited) graduate school for which Tierney works. I'm not trying to get into Tierney yet, but simply saying that there may be useful reporting sources that still have a POV. I simply mention it as something that could both be checked with Taxexempt.com, and also considered vis-a-vis Horowitz, if we go that way.

The number of chapters needs sourcing; I thought I saw that on Code Pink's webpage, noted it mentally, and used Tierney as source for the same data. I was able to find that, and other size and organization data, on that page. That also explains the role of national vs. chapters, which I think is significant to understanding the organization. I'm not saying doing anything on this now other than sourcing the material now in finance; I think it would be [1] as the source. If we can find a decent source, perhaps that should move from funding to the introduction to the article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

CodePink says they have more than 250 chapters but this should really be sourced to a 3rd party and not simply accept the 1st party claim uncritically. Alternately, it could be rephrased "CodePink states they have more than 250 chapters worldwide" and sourced to CodePink. The statement that CodePink has chapters in Norway, India, and Costa Rica is John Perazzo writing at Frontpagemag.com (and probably also published elsewhere). He says further that they have more than 90 chapters, but I think that was few years ago. Frontpagemag.com is an overtly conservative, hawkish, anti-"Islamofascist" David Horowitz source and IMO we should be cautious in using its information uncritically. I think most editors would find this particular claim about those countries neutral in content and non-controversial (though they might wonder from where the information came). DanielM (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing moving that number to the lead and sourcing Code Pink. Daniel, as neutrally as I can say it, Code Pink is an overtly radical-progressive, (nonmilitary) direct action, confrontational group. As such, the most comment on them is likely to be from overtly conservative and hawkish groups. Both Code Pink and Frontpagemag.com are sufficiently out of the mainstream media view that there may be no neutral source keeping track of them, with the caveat that that things such as tax reports of public record are reasonable to consider fair.

The truth, especially about organizational matters, probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. It would be ideal if you could find neutral sources, but they may not exist. If that is true, it may be reasonable to post both the right-radical and left-radical statements and their sourcing, and let readers draw their own conclusion. I am really trying to be neutral about this, and welcome your comment that we should not necessarily trust Code Pink as a definitive source on itself. On the other hand, I would also suggest that right-radical organizations' comments not be dismissed out of hand, if identified as such and, where possible, associated with supporting information such as the information I suggested on the funding for Tierney's organization. It's harder to associate that funding with Tierney specifically, as the organization is an accredited graduate school with real student revenues.

In other words, I agree that material should be used critically, but that in the absence of trustworthy neutral sources, I would not dismiss a claim because it comes from a hateful source. I tend to disagree with Code Pink more on their methods than some of their goals, but their tactics are likely to engender extreme responses from extremists such as themselves, but on the hypothetical "other wing". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've moved the "sandbox" draft to User_talk:Hcberkowitz/CodePink Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

CodePink are not out of the mainstream media view. The Washington Post this month for example has an article referencing them protesting Secretary of State Rice, a transcript where President Bush says again he's not paying any attention to them, and then of course their role is the Berkeley flare-up that many many other mainstream sources reported on. If there are no sources comporting with WP:V on some assertion, that assertion should not be put in the article. If you want to challenge a leftwing source in the CodePink article, you're welcome to do so, but as far as I can see nobody else is doing anything at all like what you've done with Discoverthenetworks.org, Frontpagemag.com, Capital Research Center and so on. I will go ahead and move the number of chapters text as agreed and delete the text you had marked out. DanielM (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we try to continue deciding on agreements before changing the article? Please use the sandbox

Would you mind making the change in the sandbox User_talk:Hcberkowitz/CodePink, since we are still mediating other points? I'd rather get through the mediation process, as long as it moves along, before changing the article.

I'm not sure what you mean as no one can challenge a leftwing source but a neutral source. While the 2006 elections showed a significant US dissatisfaction with rightwing ideologues, the reality is that they still are a potent force in the Executive Branch, a bloc in Congress, and active in opinion molding. Mediator comment requested I get a sense that you object to any rightwing criticism of Code Pink in the article. Are there circumstances where you will accept what sometimes, to me, seems reasonable criticism from some sources such as Capital Research Center or numbers from Discoverthenetworks.org? Without going into detail, I frequent a number of liberal blogs and mailing lists, and the Capital Research Center view of Potts at the Waxman hearing was echoed by quite progressive people that still work within the system. The concern was that Code Pink was handing Republican spinmeisters material that could be used to trivialize serious liberal concerns. I cannot agree that rightwing sources must be banned from an article about a leftwing organization. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To make myself abundantly clear, I did not agree to your going "ahead and move the number of chapters text as agreed and delete the text you had marked out." The nature of the mediation process, and good faith in it, should keep the article from becoming a moving target. If we can reach consensus on several things, that may make it reasonable to do pure editing on the article as a whole.

On a purely practical basis, moving text around is confusing, as it is apt to change the numbering of references.

I am quite frustrated with your immediately going to what appears to be an attack when I raised, intended to be the context of mediation discussion, your evaluation of Code Pink coverage in the MSM. I do not, for example, consider George W. Bush any less overtly conservative, hawkish, anti-"Islamofascist" than David Horowitz or John Tierney, but the media needs to cover him due to his office. I strenuously object to that being called mainstream coverage. The Berkeley incident, while in principle local and probably decided by the Code Pink chapter, is triggering admittedly right-wing Congressional response that is not mentioned. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, I didn't attack you. Second, you yourself had just made edits after we said we would keep the article in a fixed state, in response to our discussion. Also you said "I am proposing moving that number to the lead and sourcing Code Pink" and I did just that. I further deleted the portion you yourself had previously marked a line through. I don't know why you are getting frustrated. These are minor changes that we discussed and I have continued recently to leave your finance section largely undisturbed despite IMO grievous, pervasive problems with non-compliance with WP:V and WP:NOR. DanielM (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The article in its current state (18:22 24 February, 2008) IMO does not contain any objectionable tax data sourcing, so unless you revert it, we can go on to the next mediation component. DanielM (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean as no one can challenge a leftwing source but a neutral source. While the 2006 elections showed a significant US dissatisfaction with rightwing ideologues, the reality is that they still are a potent force in the Executive Branch, a bloc in Congress, and active in opinion molding. Mediator comment requested I get a sense that you object to any rightwing criticism of Code Pink in the article. Are there circumstances where you will accept what sometimes, to me, seems reasonable criticism from some sources such as Capital Research Center or numbers from Discoverthenetworks.org? Without going into detail, I frequent a number of liberal blogs and mailing lists, and the Capital Research Center view of Potts at the Waxman hearing was echoed by quite progressive people that still work within the system. The concern was that Code Pink was handing Republican spinmeisters material that could be used to trivialize serious liberal concerns. I cannot agree that rightwing sources must be banned from an article about a leftwing organization. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To make myself abundantly clear, I did not agree to your going "ahead and move the number of chapters text as agreed and delete the text you had marked out." The nature of the mediation process, and good faith in it, should keep the article from becoming a moving target. If we can reach consensus on several things, that may make it reasonable to do pure editing on the article as a whole.

On a purely practical basis, moving text around is confusing, as it is apt to change the numbering of references.

I am quite frustrated with your immediately going to what appears to be an attack when I raised, intended to be the context of mediation discussion, your evaluation of Code Pink coverage in the MSM. I do not, for example, consider George W. Bush any less overtly conservative, hawkish, anti-"Islamofascist" than David Horowitz or John Tierney, but the media needs to cover him due to his office. I strenuously object to that being called mainstream coverage. The Berkeley incident, while in principle local and probably decided by the Code Pink chapter, is triggering admittedly right-wing Congressional response that is not mentioned. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, I didn't attack you. Second, you yourself had just made edits after we said we would keep the article in a fixed state, in response to our discussion. Also you said "I am proposing moving that number to the lead and sourcing Code Pink" and I did just that. I further deleted the portion you yourself had previously marked a line through. I don't know why you are getting frustrated. These are minor changes that we discussed and I have continued recently to leave your finance section largely undisturbed despite IMO grievous, pervasive problems with non-compliance with WP:V and WP:NOR. DanielM (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The only edits I made were to the edit-mode text of citations, because the source, taxexemptworld.com, was not showing up after getting out of edit mode, and was causing confusion. The point of my making a line through text was to show changes being discussed. Had I not wanted to keep a record of the changes, for all our benefits, I would have deleted the text in question.

An administrator reverted the strikethrough and asked that the working draft be moved to a sandbox, which I did.

Perhaps my means of expression was unclear. In a mediation process involving a document, when I say "I propose" some change, it doesn't mean that the change is made immediately. The process of gaining consensus in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), with which I've worked for many years, is for the author(s) to put out a draft and seek comment. During that comment period, interactive discussions of a point may arise, and new and better ideas emerge. When the comments on a given version stop, the working group chair then tells the author(s) to incorporate the comments and produce a new draft. It is always clear which is the current draft on which comments are being made.

That is the sense in which I said "I propose". My intention was that we would continue to go through points of disagreement, given that any given agreement can affect the wording of a planned change, often by mutual agreement that the later change clarifies the earlier agreement.

It is not "my" finance section; I understand, I believe, WP:OWN. Frankly, I consider the finance section less POV than other parts of the article, if there is not an assumption that if something about a radical left-wing source comes from a radical right-wing source, the latter is not acceptable.

We apparently have different views of what constitutes WP:OR, which is one reason I asked for mediation. For example, if OR were not a constraint on me, I would mention, in the article, that Code Pink's activities appear incompatible with 501(c)(3) status. Groups all over the political spectrum, such as MoveOn.org and the National Rifle Association, have 501(c)(4) status, which allows them to lobby but not to endorse. IRS 527 organizations can endorse. Since I have not seen an independent source bring up that conflict, it would be WP:OR for me to do so. For me to look for sources for what appears to be missing information, and find that the only source with any data is quite POV, I believe that unless the source has a reputation for outright lies, it is fair to use the source with suitable qualifiers on its POV. My sense is, and correct me if I am wrong, is you object to any use of a source that is not neutral and clearly opposes Code Pink. It puzzles me why you do not qualify what George W. Bush says, because, other than his office, he is as partisan, or more so, than John Tierney.

Now, can we reach agreement to get all the way through a draft before changing the published article? It is my intent to discuss differences in good faith, but I don't know how to do that if the article is a moving target for other than pure typo or formatting issues. mediator request Is this grounds for a temporary edit restriction on the article?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

When you proposed the change, my plain understanding was that I had a chance to concur, thus creating agreement between us. We don't really have the wherewithal to follow the processes of the IETF. I think you're cross-connecting some unlike circuits by comparing Pres. Bush to John Tierney in this way. As WP:V governs "sources," Tierney would be the source of the tax data, which would be the subject. The Washington Post would be the source of Bush's remarks, which would be the subject. The proper comparison would be between Tierney and the Washington Post (or between Bush's remarks and the tax data). I'd prefer to make changes to the article with the successful completion of each step of what appears will be a sequence of steps of mediation (tax data, funding data, WP:NOR determination, balance etc.) rather than going through all the steps before changing anything. I am against locking the article pending resolution of mediation, because it would lock the article in a very problematic state (WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:V) in what appears could be a very long mediation period. DanielM (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that there are problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, although we may differ greatly on the specifics. My greatest worry, in seeking mediation, is that we have such different ideas about the application of WP:NOR, and the appropriate use of POV sources, that the gap may be unbridgeable, and all we will have is an edit war.

Perhaps it would help if I shared a bit of personal, subjective politics. While I thought James Buchanan fought hard for the title, I am now convinced that George W. Bush is the most disastrous President in the history of the Republic. My greatest personal, political priority, to be sharply distinguished from my sincere attempts to edit fairly, is that the 2008 elections, perhaps through spoilers from an extreme, will continue the pattern.

I am one of those that believes Ralph Nader is dominated by his own ego, and his proposals to run again would be a terrible chance to spoil a change good for the country. While there simply isn't enough time left, I would not have disagreed with the thermonuclear weapon of American politics, impeachment. That Midge Potts capered with the "impeach Bush" slogan shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the system -- if there were to be an impeachment, it would need to start with Cheney.

In like manner, I see Code Pink's tactics as handing over crates of ammunition for Republican attacks. It is absolutely relevant, to understanding Code Pink's role in the political system, to be aware of the vitriolic responses that they elicit from a few, which, in the hands of Rove and his ilk, could turn destructive for the eventual Democratic nominee.

It would be absolutely unethical, and intolerable by my own standards, if I were not as objective as possible toward Code Pink. If right-wing criticism is dismissed out of hand, I see no way to write an objective article. Again, I have no way of knowing your politics, but, by the intensity of your reaction to Tierney and others, I doubt they are of the extreme right.

Truth is the best thing that can happen to the political system of the US. Some truths are not pleasant. While the classic line is no one should see how laws or sausages are actually made, political campaigns can be even more disgusting. I appeal for what I hope is a sense of NPOV, and that cannot involve throwing out dissenting opinion, with appropriate caveats, funding sources, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You argue for an inclusion of the "vitriolic" (your word) Tierney and in the same breath for NPOV, and there's an incongruity there. If by "dissent" you mean information critical of CodePink, there is an abundance of it in the article. It has not only not been thrown out, it has been shoveled in by the truckload. If by "dissent" you mean right-wing, there is plenty of that too. Right-wingers and other critics get their airtime in the CodePink article. They can have their opinions, but we must be more careful in also sourcing statements of fact to them. In this we are guided by WP:V. If we are to proceed with the mediation we should discuss the disputed text in the context of Wikipedia policy.

Would you like to forge ahead with a determination on Aboutus.org meeting WP:V standards? As far as I can see it does not. It is a wiki site. I went there and clicked edit on the ETINA entry and it was going to let me edit without so much as getting an account or providing an email address. Literally anyone could have entered the ETINA information, so how can we treat that as a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If you find it does comply with WP:V I'd like to hear your rationale. If you find that it does not comply, I welcome you to remove the reference and any text it supports. DanielM (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us not focus on the dissent at this point, but whether you make a "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument that no data derived from the aboutus.org entry, which led to the discovery of ETINA and then its relationship to Code Pink. Without the ETINA information, it would not have been possible to find the Taxexemptworld.com information, since the actual 501(c)(3) certification appears to be for ETINA, not Code Pink. Code Pink, in claiming it is a 501(c)(3) organization, is stretching full disclosure by not saying it, itself, has no certification, but derives it from Andrew Heath's organization.

I think there is verifiability in this specific case, because the ETINA entry on aboutus.org is completely consistent with the information on ETINA at Taxemptworld, and, further, Code Pink's own solicitation points back to ETINA. Speculation about its access is secondary to the data found there being consistent with tax information and Code Pink webpages. I'm not saying aboutus.org is infallible, but I believe there is verifiability in this case.

It might be worth mentioning that many national intelligence services have gone through the frustration of going through reams of propaganda, to find an occasional piece of information that confirms, or is confirmed by, another source. I am only concerned with WP:V of aboutus.org if there is collateral confirmation, which I believe exists. aboutus.org could be run by the reincarnation of Paul Joseph Goebbels, as long as it contributes a fact consistent with other sources.

As far as removing the references, I do not plan to make any further changes to the article itself until mediation is finished. I have asked that you honor this convention, which I believe is common in mediation situations. In this case, however, I don't see anything that needs to be removed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand your answer as to whether Aboutus.org comports with WP:V. You yourself have said there are problems with WP:V. IIRC the mediator has asked us to discuss our issues in terms of the Wikipedia rules, and with as few pararaphs as possible. I ask again: does Aboutus.org comply with WP:V? DanielM (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In one paragraph, the data I obtained from aboutus.org meets WP:V, since it was confirmed by at least two independent sources. I do not accept the ideas that an individual fact from a source with an excellent reputation for accuracy is always correct, or that an individual fact from an unreliable source, which can be confirmed through other sources, must be incorrect. That is in the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:V. Please consider the relative importance of the specific from aboutus.org, in that while it added a small bit of information, it was principally part of the provenance of information from multiple sources, some neutral.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your comment about "data [you] obtained from Aboutus.org" but you didn't answer the question. If you look at WP:V you can see it describes reliable sources. It says articles should have "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and also "...open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." I disagree with your novel argument that agreement with other sources on a specific piece of data provides a reverse authentication to Aboutus.org, which could then even be run, as you argue further above, by Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels. We're supposed to be operating under Wikipedia policy, and I don't think it says that. I'd ask you in good faith, one last time, does Aboutus.org meet WP:V's standards for a source? DanielM (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my "novel argument", in good faith, and not by your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I ask you again, is data found as a result of an aboutus.com entry unacceptably tainted? I point out that nothing in ETINA's tax statement or Andrew Heath's own website contradicts the single piece of information I used. My "novel argument" is a routine thing in scientific and other research; it is understood that raw data needing validation can come from a poor source. I would not have used that sequence of facts from different sources, with one starting at aboutus.org, if I did not believe it met WP:V.

The key material is the tax status from Taxexemptworld.com, and the Code Pink funds solicitation asking for checks to be made out to CODEPINK/ETINA. ETINA does not have its own website, but everything that I took in the aboutus entry for it could be verified by other sources.

Doug, I think this is for you. I believe, in good faith, that WP:V does not damn all data derived from a questionable source, as long as that data could be validated by independent sources. I regard mainstream media, and such things as the White House web page, in this manner, as providing initial reports, which then need validation.

I don't know your politics, Daniel. No need to answer me, but I'd ask you to think if you apply your "source is valid for everything or nothing" interpretation of WP:V depending on the political orientation of the source.

I can say no more. I have my interpretation, in good faith, of WP:V. It seems considerably different from yours, and I don't see any way to progress without at least mediation by a third party. Doug, HELP!. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked for input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Procedure as well as source proper. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies that this didn't work out

Guys, I'm very sorry that I couldn't keep up with the very long discussions and didn't have the time to be continuously involved. I think you are looking for someone to give you more guidance than I see the purpose of this venue. I can suggest things and try to help you communicate better, but I can't rule on things. I can give you my read on policy, but only as a suggested reading or my understanding not a definitive ruling.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)