Talk:Code Pink

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Code Pink article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Anti-war Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk page archives

Talk:Code Pink/Archive 1

We don't need this

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

Okay, then fix it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, gives some character to the text. I'm not saying who wrote it though. <walks away whistling> DanielM (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has provided objections I have edited the portions I take issue with, I hope anyone who feels the need to revert will provide an explanation here so we can discuss, I believe I have provided ample time for objections already but I am always willing to listen. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It reads more neutrally now, so I'm satisfied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It reads antiseptically and vague now and conveys much less to the reader about what the scene was like. You can read it now and have no idea that he banged his gavel and said he would prosecute them fully. It's not something though that I was planning to go back and forth about. I am however curious as to in what sense you found it other than neutral, SchuminWeb. DanielM (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even as much a neutrality issue as what I felt to be an improvement of the way the article read. The previous description was simply too narrative and unnecessary. The same information is still conveyed without appearing to be a line from a trashy crime novel. Inseeisyou (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true life must resemble a trashy crime novel then, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aAU76bqL4Y DanielM (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice in the video link you posted he doesn't state "to the fullest extent of the law" as the previous version mentioned. He actually references the specific law in which they are in violation of. "To the fullest extent of the law" was just a little "color" thrown in, refer back to my statement about trashy crime novels. Inseeisyou (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said "under the law" and indeed banged his gavel. You're picking nits. But I already said I wasn't going to quarrel with your antiseptic and vague language that conveys little to Wikipedia readers about the scene. DanielM (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2008(UTC)

Mentioning the specific law someone is in violation of, and telling them they will be prosecuted under the law is not synonymous with being prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law" (conjuring up a "throw the book" at them mentality). Correcting a falsely attributed quote in an encyclopedia article none the less is hardly picking nits. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase wasn't in quotations, so there was no "falsely attributed quote," 220.70.250.246. We can disagree about the force of Skelton's comments, to me it seemed very strong. That part could have been phrased better, and sure, more specifically supported by the reference, but it wasn't inaccurate IMO. DanielM (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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