Talk:Code Pink

Left-wing

JTA: "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 :-)

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."

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)

Code PINK is a left wing organization why is it so difficult for the admins of Wikipedia to actually allow TRUE information on left wing organizations?2603:8083:E6F0:B5D0:C592:EDD3:E3E2:468C (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Support for China

The 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

Pinging @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

@Avatar317 I have reverted your edit which incorrectly claims that NYT is RS whereas the sources I used are not.

1. Al Jazeera and The Hindu are WP:RSP.
2. 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.
3. The very first line of WP:BLP says Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.
4. 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)

RS mentioning Code Pink

Isenstadt, Alex (2026-01-09). "Scoop: White House contacted Secret Service about MTG". Axios. Retrieved 2026-01-10. Quote:

"The relationship between President Trump and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene grew so poisonous that the White House told the Secret Service that Greene may have tipped off Code Pink protesters about his surprise visit last fall to a D.C. restaurant she recommended, two sources on Trump's team tell Axios.

That episode — which involved a chaotic confrontation between anti-war activists and Trump — embarrassed the president and intensified concerns in the White House about his safety, a year after he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt."

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)