" 

 :::Fair enough. I'll copy quotes in my response; I see your point that while it may be more conversational in the short term, it may not help a permanent record. 

 :::There is a delicate line between OR synthesis, and being objective yet informative. When an editor (OK,me) has direct experience in a subject, and doesn't see a relevant aspect covered in any way, objective or not, I think it's responsible to bring up not personal observation, but reasonable sources. Let me take a totally different subject, such as wound infections with ""flesh-eating bacteria"" (generally strains of Streptococcus pyogenes). If that article merely reported that someone had come in and put slices of bread on the area, I would consider it responsible editing to find references that represent current medical opinion: surgical debridement and massive doses of intravenous antibiotics. I spent 40 years or so in Washington, including working for the Library of Congress, and I know that neither Democrats nor Republicans are amused by ""stunts"" (your word, not sourced) in hearings. In this case, my experience was that the effect of stunts really needed to be documented for the general reader. 

 :::Quoting you, ""stunt has a clear and appropriate negative connotation"".  For most people, it represents a negative and unsourced POV. It was not clear to me, when you made a comment about solemn hearings, if you were or were not suggesting that the solemnity was undesirable. ""Code Pink actions at Plame-Wilson Hearing"" is descriptive and neutral. ""Actions"" could include Code Pink representatives, in pink power designer suits, giving testimony to the committee. Actions could include trying to be in every view of the witness. Headings should be neutral. I disagree that ""plays heavy metal at inauguration"" is more informative than ""actions at inaugurations"". Headings are not expected to convey information, but to assist people in finding the informative text. In an encyclopedia, they are for indexing, not the eye-catching style of newspapers. 

 :::I will have to reread the Tierney and Perazzo articles in detail; it was not my intent to mislead. Without them in front of me, my recollection is that you are correct that Perazzo didn't directly say anything about Code Pink. What he did talk about, IIRC, was the funding of an umbrella group from which Tierney said Code Pink received funds. The article by Tierney alone was confusing; the two needed to be read together. I may have misread and I will happily say so if rereading gives me that impression. At this time, however, it is my impression that Code Pink receives funding from a source that may have a relevant ideological POV. Quoting you, ""Apparently, both Berkowitz and Tierney misstated their references in a manner prejudicial to CodePink! I'm tempted to make a sarcastic comment..."" I'd say you did make a sarcastic comment. I hope my understanding of good faith editing is that if I found an inconsistency in your sources, I'd write something along the lines of ""A and B, quoted by Daniel, do not appear to agree with each other or the point that was put in the article. Would you mind rechecking these?"" 

   "