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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Code Pink
State: Closed

Requested By: ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Other Parties: Hcberkowitz (talk · contribs); DanielM (talk · contribs); and, to a degree 67.169.26.99 (talk · contribs)
Mediated By: Doug (talk · contribs)
Comments: One party withdrew, mediation terminated



Contents

[edit] Request details

Code Pink is an article that occasionally flares up into edit wars due to the polarized nature of the subject matter. In this case, no edit war has happened; two editors are both in agreement that sourced material to hand should be used, but don't agree as to where and in what context. This dispute is heated but has not become unpleasant - both editors clearly have Wikipedia's core values in mind, but are just stuck on which side of a not very clear line these things should go. The IP editor perhaps isn't helping, which is why I've sort-of included him/her.

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Hcberkowitz (talk · contribs) and DanielM (talk · contribs); both are editing in good faith at all times as far as I can see.

Do we need Redvers (talk · contribs) - I see that user has been involved with this page in the past and is the one who set up this referral.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on?

The dispute is complicated at the first approximation: the Code Pink organisation appears to be essentially anarchist in nature but also has formal posts; members carry out "actions" that are neither approved of nor disapproved of by the (notional?) leadership; the organisation's finances are published but seemingly not analysed; people who support them seem to say bad things about them, whilst people who dislike them are sometimes in admiration. This is creating a sourcing nightmare.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

As I say, both editors are editing well within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines; they are civil, stick to the 3RR, agree on most things, are happy to talk when things get hot... but are diametrically opposed in the minutiae of the article. The two of them, at first glance, are admin material, because of the complete failure to edit war comprehensively. But they're both stressed, to the point that one of them has come to me because I protected the article ages ago. This isn't "knocking heads together" time, for once. This is about finding a compromise or a situation where both are equally unhappy(!). Sort of heading them off at the pass here. Both will listen to help and advice: they just need someone to give it to them.

[edit] Mediator notes

I've offered to mediate or to offer a third opinion and I've disclosed a possible COI (that I am a member of the U.S. Military) at the article's talk page. Waiting for a response there.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Acceptance of mediation

Each party should note acceptance of mediation and acceptance of the mediators below (although other mediators may join in at anytime - this is informal). Please watchlist this page as all discussions will occur here.

  1. Accept mediation. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. I did not ask for mediation but it's fine with me. Editor Doug has said he will mediate. DanielM (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to cite Godwin's Law and withdraw from mediation. In response to my question about whether a source he had inserted complied with WP:V the other party said "aboutus.org could be run by the reincarnation of Paul Joseph Goebbels, as long as it contributes a fact consistent with other sources." [1]. There's more than simply that behind my withdrawal, but it and the exchange where it occurred are probably the biggest factors. I'm not going to characterize everything, you can read the discussions if you like (caution, they're very, very long). DanielM (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural point about archiving

After reading WP:Archive, I'd still like some advice about what form of archiving is acceptable to all participants. Doing an automatic move, I'd think, is a problem in that it makes some of the discussion less accessible.

We all have styles of how we like to respond on talk pages. I happen to like to intersperse comments, indented, under the point to which I am responding. Daniel does not like this "conversational" approach, and said, not unreasonably, that it does make it harder to read as a document of peoples' positions (i.e., for a permanent record). We should have agreement on the archiving procedure before anyone proceeds, since the related conversational-vs-reference issue already came up on the talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

There is pre-existing discussion at the foot of Talk:Code Pink. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion could get long, would you agree to keep it on this page's talk page for now and reserve this page for areas of agreement?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone direct me to the procedure for archiving?
I agree with the idea of reserving this page for agreement, but, if I might ask for a slight exception, I believe there is one area of miscommunication. While I was editing the citations on finance, it did not fully register on me that the actual source of the financial information--an issue separate for why I researched it--did not show except in edit mode. I have edited the citation such that the source, a database of IRS reporting on nonprofits, should now show. It would be unfortunate if some of the tension came from an assumption that the financial information itself came from a politicized source; it did not. Daniel appears concerned that the source of the financial information came from Tierney or Perazzo. While an intermediate report did come from what, perhaps, was a right-wing extremist monitoring perceived left-wing extremists, the final was from an apparently commercial reporting source. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that and put it down on the discussion page here to see if we can get agreement on that issue. Thanks. Try WP:Archive, I think.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Good approach. I also noticed that Wikipedia itself has a section on 501(c) and a subhead 501 (c)#501(c)(3) itself. At this point, it's probably inappropriate to touch the article itself, unless it's agreed that simply wikilinking the term 501(c)(3) is neutral and informative. That article page does have a link to a scarily well-written (for tax things) IRS page further defining the requirements.
Just so you have an idea of my perception of OR, I think it's quite clean to wikilink a relevant page. I'd like to wikilink another section of it, 501(c)#Political activity, which is slightly touchier. It gets touchier if I pulled in text, which I think is relevant, from the IRS. Putting part of the IRS page dealing with permissible political activity for a 501(c)(3), without comment, gets to the edge of OR but can be justified as precisely sourced. If, however, I was to point out, without an independent source, what I appears, to me, to be a conflict between the Tax Code and Code Pink activities, that would be OR.
I don't want to speak for Daniel, so please correct me, Daniel, if I misspeak. It is my impression that you look at OR somewhat in the light of what trial lawyers call "fruit of the poisoned tree." In that context, any evidence developed, no matter how objective, cannot be admitted if the idea of obtaining it came from an improper search, interrogation, etc. The parallel with Wikipedia would be if the idea to research something came from a POV source, then my putting in the eventually neutral text/source is "OR by ancestry" and impermissible to put into the article. Is that a fair statement?
If that is your position, I have a different view. It's a good editing technique, in general, to have confirmation, from additional source(s), of the most neutral information. An editor, acting in self-perceived fairness, can include material that has independent confirmation and/or comes from a recognized neutral source, even if the first hint that there might be useful and WP:V information somewhere is itself WP:POV. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If Taxexemptworld.com is the "apparently commercial reporting source" referred to above, then no I don't quarrel with its data, but note that that site is used to provide information about ETINA, not CodePink. Howard has used other sources, some not reliable IMO per WP:V, to demonstrate a parent-child relationship between ETINA and CodePink. Only once we accept that as fact can the Taxexemptworld.com reference to ETINA become at all relevant to the CodePink article (if it does even then). I leave it to to Doug to decide:
  1. A parent-child relationship (note: not just some sort of relationship, but a parent-child one) has been established
  2. the relevance and appropriateness of using the parent's tax data in the CodePink article, whoever the parent is
  3. whether WP:NOR is being adhered to in the CodePink funding section
I would argue that the answers to the above are no, no, and no. Unless Doug comes back with yes, yes, and yes, I believe that all or most of the section has to go. DanielM (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion tabof this page, where I have discussed these relationships in detail. Again, I would encourage, in the interest of good faith, to focus on asking questions at this point, rather than announcing what has do go. My apologies if I misunderstood, but the comments immediately above do not seem to indicate that you have looked at the discussion, where I thought I addressed every point you raised. If you have looked at the discussion page, what do you find lacking?
I'm also a bit puzzled about your issues about parent-child relationships with respect to tax law. As I understand it, as long as both organizations are using the same tax exemption number, they are, in the eyes of the IRS, essentially the same organization. As long as they operate under one tax exemption, any parent-child is purely internal. Indeed, on the ETINA web page, it speaks of Code Pink as one of its "projects".
On the Code Pink solicitation for funds I cited, it asks checks to be made out to Code Pink/ETINA. That, in turn, indicates that their funds are comingled, and, from a financial standpoint, they are effectively one organization. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
501(c)(3)'s that engage in, or dedicate their money toward, more than an insignificant ammount of political lobbying can risk shutdown from the IRS. Code Pink is a 501(c)(3) organization, as classified by the IRS. That's not debatable. It's dangerous to their organization for Wikipedia to claim that they're a political organization, or a political lobying organization. Thus, if it's not sourced extremely well, we shouldn't have any reference to that they're political. Fredsmith2 (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies, and does this need arbitration

If you are seriously concerned by Godwin's Law, I apologize for using it as a figure of speech. Note, Daniel, that I did not refer to you as a Nazi. I used a reference of a major historical propagandist to characterize the site to which you objected.

Clearly, we are not going to agree. I have requested independent interpretation of WP:RS. If the "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument is supported, I cannot edit in what I consider intellectual good conscience, and will withdraw from any comment on this article, and possibly from all Wikipedia editing. I do not consider such an interpretation consistent with reasonable scholarly standards, and, if the choice is editing under that constraint or not editing, I choose not to edit. I do, however, choose to try to get a policy interpretation that very carefully verified facts from questionable sources are a reasonable source.