Talk:Coffee Party USA

Name

I think the appropriate name for this article should be The Coffee Party Movement, as the website states. QN5Soxfan (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Guilt By Association

I've noticed that certain editors seem to feel that they need to point out that Annabel Park spoke at a the Netroots Nation conference, even though it has absolutely no weight on this article and while it may be fine to note that in a bio about her, there is absolutely no need to mention this other then as a guilt by association. If you want to classify this movement as a liberal movement, then you need to use a reference that actually says this movement claims to be a liberal movement and not by some guilt by association argument that because Annabel Park spoke at some conference then her movement must be that too. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About Ms Park

Annabel Park worked for the Obama campaign during the 2008 election: "Korean-American Video Activist Battles for Obama". Chosun Ilbo. Feb 25, 2008.

Is it correct to say she "worked" for his campaign? The source cited above states she did so at her own expense, and there is a fact check on this very subject at the CPM site. Jaymendoza (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

She co-founded a YouTube channel named United For Obama which specifies that http://www.barackobama.com/ is its website.

She uses an offensive sexual slur to refer to TEA party supporters.[1][2][3]

I predict that the "Coffee Party" will fizzle out fairly quickly, at which stage we may end up deleting this article. Cheers, CWC 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's great about her, now what about the subject of this article: The Coffee Party? Do you have any sort of reference for the party to back up your claim that the party will fizzle out? Brothejr (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, "worked for" the Obama campaign means she was a hired employee, and that's wrong: she was a volunteer. I've changed the wording to "volunteer filmmaker". If anyone can think of a better wording, please edit it into the article.

My prediction is my own assessment. I mentioned it so that people know where I'm coming from in discussing this article. Cheers, CWC 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another NYT item

The New York Times has run another story about the Coffee Party, "Democrats Need a Rally Monkey". (Strange headline, huh?). It might be of use in this article. Cheers, CWC 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Membership

The way this section is worded it isn't very neutral. I'm thinking there could be a bit off improvement here. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been remedied by pointing out that Tea Party supporter Sarah Palin has over ten times more Facebook fans.

I am wondering what the relevance of Facebook membership is? Wouldn't attendance at actual gathers have more importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.140.220 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

Why isn't there a criticism section on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.53.53 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons. One: so far there aren't any reliable outside sources that discuss criticism of the Coffee Party, if you find one feel free to add it; and two criticism section aren't really supposed to be on Wikipedia, they are supposed to be integrated into the main text of the article rather than their own seperate section. I Feel Tired (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably still too new for much criticism to have developed. Give them a chance to do something to be criticized first; and then we can determine if it needs a whole section. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of responsible, fully and reliably sourced criticism regarding the Coffee party's artificial nature, funding from George-Soros related entities, concealment of the registration of its highly-professional and expensive website, etc. etc. Are we really to believe that Annabel Parks (and/or Al Alborn) rather than a staff of 50 is running www.coffeepartyusa.com? The problem is that any time such information gets added to the article, it is arbitrarily deleted by whoever runs the page with some silly excuse. I find it a bit of an embarrassment to Wikipedia, especially because it's in service of a "movement" which has such vaguely-defined goals. Even more embarrassing is the selective deletions of comparisons to the Tea Party. For example, even though the intro to the article concedes that the whole purpose of the Coffee Party was to counter the Tea Party and compares its Facebook membership that of a Tea Party page, a relevant comparison to Tea Party speaker Sarah Palin's fan numbers was deleted.

The "Donate" page for the Coffee Party openly admits that the contributions go to Democracy in Action, the progressive Soros Foundation funded operation. Yeah, Annabel Parks just snapped her fingers and that happened by magic.

Let's have a little more honesty, both on the main article page and in the discussion. Discussion which denied the obvious facts about the Coffee Party, or gives disingenuous reasons why relevant facts are deleted from the article, violates Wikipedia policy.TruthfulPerson (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No one "runs the page". Why not produce some of this "quite a bit of responsible, fully and reliably sourced criticism" of which you speak? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no one "runs the page" just like "no one runs the Coffee Party's multi million dollar website. And re-read my post and retract your silly statement, Xenophrenic -- my source is the Coffee Party's own webpage identifying where its money goes. Or just Google "Soros" and "Coffee Party" if you're really interested (you're not). Or just go to the "History" and read the now censored versions relating the origin of the this "grassroots" (i.e. astroturfed) movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked their website, as you suggested - the money goes to them. I Googled "Soros" and "Coffee Party" and I still haven't seen this "quite a bit of responsible, fully and reliably sourced criticism" of which you speak. In fact, I haven't seen one shred of reliably sourced criticism. I'll ask again - how about you produce some of these reliable sources? At this point, I'll settle for just one. Provide a link, please. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you Googled Soros and Coffee Party then you found countless links noting that Democracy in Action is funded by the Soros Foundation. And you don't even need those lnks because you can go to Democracyinaction.org which states that fact quite plainly. If some group pretending to be non-partisan, independent and grassroots raises it money by funneling it into a pot controlling by a billionaire leftwing activist, you'd think that fact wouldn't be censored in this article.).24.193.146.146 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked for reliable sources. I said I would settle for just one, and still you can not produce even that. When I Googled Soros & Coffee Party, I didn't see any reliably sourced criticism. When I Googled "George Bush" and "Coffee Party", I got twice as many links - I knew it, the Coffee Party is George Bush! When I Google Elvis & Sightings, 10 times that number of links pop up - so obviously Elvis is alive and well, right? This is entertaining, but let's stick to reliable sources, please. Provide a link, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So who created, funded and runs the coffeepartyusa.org website, which this article touts (without a source) as "official"? Don't see Annabel Parks name on it. Don't see a board of directors page. Can't find who registered the site (although we do now know who funds it).24.193.146.146 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Several of the cited reliable sources already in use in the article note coffeepartyusa.com is the website of the the Coffee Party - so you are incorrect. Who funds it? My neighbor does (he sent in a check yesterday), along with many others, I assume. Who runs it? Perhaps some web-savvy pimply-faced kid? It's plain looking, but gets the job done. As for a board of directors, I don't believe the Coffee Party has one. Did you have some additional reliably sourced information you'd like to see added? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It's fine for people to investigate things and draw their own conclusions in general, but not at Wikipedia. We call that "original research", and it's not allowed here. What Wikipedia does (or at least is supposed to do) is report what "reliable sources" have said. Some of us regard certain bloggers as more reliable than certain news media, but Wikipedia's rules require sourcing to mainstream media, serious books, etc. (Otherwise we'd spend all our time arguing about which bloggers are reliable.) So we are not going to report any criticism of the CPUSA in this article until/unless it comes from a "reliable" source. That's just the way Wikipedia works. We're used to people being surprised and/or disappointed by this.
(Aside: coffeepartyusa.org is a HTTP redirect to coffeepartyusa.com.) Cheers, CWC 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting images of events

There are several pages of photos and descriptions sent in by attendees to the events, most of them not yet "vetted". Are there any images available that can be used freely used in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons to other organizations/movements

It will be noted that this movement was founded in reaction to the tea party, but this page is not to be used to compare/contrast with any other movement/organization, including but not limited to the tea party Steelersfan7roe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to see more depth in the origins of this movement. "Reaction to" might be a component, while "alternative to" seems to be equally applicable. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FOX News apparently is already exploring the comparisons with the Tea Party. I moved this content here for discussion:

In response to Park's charges of incivility and obstructionism by the Tea Party, Michael Patrick Leahy, co-founder National Tea Party Coalition, contended in a Fox News interview that his group was in fact civil and asserted that the Coffee Party's website was put together by an organization at least partially funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute.

We'll need a source better than "YouTube", of course, but something should be able to be found on the FNC site I would think. It was also misplaced in the "Origins" section, when it is clearly just opinion commentary about the Coffee Party. Is the commentary relative and substantial enough for inclusing in the article? I've heard the attempt at "guilt by association" attempts with the Soros comments before, but I haven't seen anything in reliable sources to indicate it isn't just the usual mudslinging. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Coffee Party" involved in addressing Climate change\Global warming, such as 350.org & 1Sky, similar to 10:10's political involvement in the U.K with COP 16?

Is the "Coffee Party" involved in addressing Climate change\Global warming, such as 350.org & 1Sky, similar to 10:10's political involvement in the U.K with COP 16? 99.155.154.231 (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference is "Cop 16".