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 useshas previously used 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)Updated by CWC 13:31, 19 April 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)

The comments thqt Ms. Park made sexual slurs against "Tea Party" participants in the comment page is not supported by the references to three twitter messages that are footnoted. The comments should be deleted ans inaccurate and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.219.85 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Moved here from following section.)

Well, Ms Park did use the term "teabagger" in those tweets, but she sent them well before the Coffee Party was launched (I've updated my earlier comment to reflect this) and I suspect she now regrets using that word.

This relates to an interesting (and impressive) aspect of the Coffee Party that I haven't seen discussed much yet: their insistence on civility. For example, see the "rules of engagement" at the bottom of every page on their website. We currently mention this in the article; if/when this insistence gets significant coverage in WP:Reliable Sources, we probably should give it more emphasis. Cheers, CWC 13:31, 19 April 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)

Facebook membership refers to a "virtual" membership, which reflects the general attitude, not the kind of committed and principled opinion as seen with the Tea Party people. If the Coffee Party has rallies, the attendance numbers from those should have a higher priority than a virtual fanclub. In the absence of major rallies, let's keep this section about "Facebook membership". 94.101.5.97 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the Coffee Party intends to "have rallies", from what I have read. Rather than gather in big numbers and scream about not being represented, it sounds like they intend to formulate policy and legislation changes and converse directly with lawmakers about implementing them. Many small, productive group sessions instead of boisterous photo-ops. The Facebook page was crucial during their origins, as noted in the article, but most of the activity now appears to be coordinated through their web site. Anyone got a line on web site membership or activity statistics? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 17 April 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)

It's fine for people to investigate things and draw their own conclusions in general, but not at Wikipedia.

Rubbish. That's just about all that Wikipedia does. As long as the things investigated are properly sourced, it's also "fine."

We call that "original research", and it's not allowed here.

Depends what the sources are. No, I can't conduct scientific experiments in my basement and report it as fact on Wikipedia, but I can certainly cite a source that has conducted such experiments.

What Wikipedia does (or at least is supposed to do) is report what "reliable sources" have said.</e>

Partial credit for this one. Recall that much of this article relies on what the Coffee Party's website says, or what Annabel Park says, and certainly neither of those fall into the traditional definition of "reliable sources."

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.)

Partial credit here, too. I'll put aside the objection that there are serious questions about what the "mainstream media" is and what "serious books" are. But there are plenty of Wikipedia articles which cite Andrew Sullivan or Glenn Greenwald as sources (and in fact, until recently, this very article relied on a completely unknown blogger called "The Political Cartel Foundation" as a "reliable source").

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.

And I'm used this royal "we" talking about what "we" are going to do, while completely disregarding the rules "they" set down when it is convenient to them.TruthfulPerson (talk) 19:06, 18 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)

We'll need a source better than "YouTube", Uh, it was a video of a Fox broadcast, not content produced by YouTube or a YouTube subscriber. Try to be accurate in your descriptions, Xenophrenic. Also, YouTube clips are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, unless there's some legitimate dispute about the authenticity of the clip (not a problem a here). But if you contend otherwise, I presume you'd have no objection to me going through Wikipedia articles and removing any text which relies on a YouTube clip of a network broadcast? I'll commence that project immediately if you have no objection.

of course, but something should be able to be found on the FNC site I would think. And if not, the YouTube clip will have to do.

It was also misplaced in the "Origins" section, when it is clearly just opinion commentary about the Coffee Party.

This entire article is nothing but "commentary about the Coffee Party," with the commentary being supplied by the (alleged) founders and officers of the party. The information was "misplaced" only because you disagree with it, and don't think it should be "placed" anywhere in the article.

Is the commentary relative and substantial enough for inclusing in the article?

Insofar as the sole purpose of the Coffee Party is to supply criticism and commentary about the Tea Party, of course it is.

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. What you've actually seen is "guilt by participation" based on the documented contributions of Democracy in Action and Soros' Open Society" to the Coffee Party's fundraising and internet outreach efforts. The sources are no more unreliable or controversial and the Coffee Party's website -- in fact, they are linked from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that the statements to which you have offered no constructive response are "opinions.". And thank you for recognizing that your time would be better spent correcting the numerous fabricated quotes you have inserted in this article that are nowhere to be found in the sources you cited for them.TruthfulPerson (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction of Mischaracterized Christian Science Monitor Coverage

The section on "Events" has been CORRECTED to reflect what the Christian Science Monitor said with an actual, indisputable quote from the cited article. Note that the original section contained a complete FABRICATION, refering to the event as the "National Coffee Party Day" when the CSM NEVER used those words in the article.

Wikipedia articles should not contain material which misrepresents information contained in a reliable source. Nor should language in a Wikipedia article be invented, and falsely attributed to a cited source.207.29.40.2 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

given the CSM's full statement, i think this belongs under Media Coverage more than Events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal6546 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - and certainly not in the lede of the article. Of particular note:

The Coffee Party USA is not liberal, centrist, progressive or conservative. It is American. In fact, we challenge these labels that describe various political orientations because they create the illusion of division among the American people and obscure the real problem in our politics today: the disproportionate and corrupting influence of corporate and other special interest in our government.[4]

It looks like we have a case of "this is what we are" versus "this is what we think you are" developing. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the quote from the CSM has been moved to the first paragraph. I think this quote would be more appropriate under the "Media Coverage" section. The quote is just an opinion from one source and is not necessarily an accurate description of the coffee party.Randal6546 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually just did that. I agree that the Media Coverage section is the appropriate place for it. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't the appropriate place for it, unless the fringe (and inaccurate, as you noted above) opinion makes a significant presence in reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Membership Section Deleted Because of Absence of Reliable Source (Bloggers Don't Count!)

The sole source for the "Facebook MemberShip Section" is a BLOG called the "The Political Cartel Foundation." It clearly self-identifies as a blog, and is therefore NOT a RELIABLE source. as CWC said above, "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.)"TruthfulPerson (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I returned the section with a citation to CNN as a reliable source. Blogs may be used as sources as to their own content. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I can think of DOZENS of blogs which I can use as "sources as to their own content" which have "compared" and "noted" things about the Coffee Party -- in particular, blogs which have made comparisons between the Coffee Party and the Tea Party just like you did with regard to Facebook.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you are pleased. Please be aware that all of Wikipedia's editing policies work in conjunction with each other, and with specific regard to inserting opinions, characterizations and criticisms, deference must also be given to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, complete deference must be given to the official statements of Coffee Party representatives, with no fact-based criticism allowed. By the way, you DO realize that cluttering your comments with hyperlinked Wiki "policies" like WP:NPOV makes you seem less authorative and intelligent rather than moreso?TruthfulPerson (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm jumping here real quick because I feel something should be said. Truthfulperson: it is obvious from your comments that you have become emotional. Wikipedia is not a forum. This is not the place to vent or rant. I humbly suggest that you take a break from the coffee party wiki and cool off.Randal6546 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Randall -- Calm down, boy! It's only Wikipedia. I've corrected quite a number of conceded mistatements, misattributions in this article and will continue to do so. Since you haven't added anything at all, I would suggest you not comment on the discussion section at all. Thanks for your cooperation.TruthfulPerson (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack, this is just some humble, friendly advice. I thank you for your contributions, but you've cleary become agitated. I would just hate to see your hard work be tarnished from a heated moment. I am just a concerned wiki reader looking out the for best interest of the article.Randal6546 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservative bias

There is much weight on criticizing the group and trying to make the group look liberal, even though the founder has repeatedly stated it is not liberal. Tommy (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section (we don't use those anyway, unless criticism itself becomes notable in reliable sources) and the mischaracterization of the movement (and hence the tag) pending discussion here. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.. it was ridiculous Tommy (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the critcism section, which was fully sourced, and, in fact, better sourced because the remainder of the article was simply a press release composed of quote from the Coffee Party's websites and its functionaries. In any event, the issue is moot because the Coffee Party itself found the criticism sufficiently notable to address on its own website. I've therefore balanced the criticism with direct quotes the Coffee Party's "Fact Check" page which acknowledges contributions from Democracy in Action, acknowledges that Soros funds Democracy in Action, but denies receiving funds directly from Mr. Soros or his foundations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposed edits. However, as they have been disputed and reverted at least once, please make your proposals here where they are presently being discussed, instead of inserting them into the article before consensus is achieved. There are a number of issues with your latest edits. Not least among them is the insertion of a criticism section. Valid and relevent criticisms should be integrated into the appropriate sections of the article. Criticisms that are invalid or not significant (lacking prominence in reliable sources) are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. (Just because XYZ Conservative blog says the Coffee Party is secretly run by aliens from Mars, and a Coffee Party rep says that is false, we don't add both those statements to the article and call it "balanced".) As a general rule, we don't have "Criticism" sections unless that criticism is covered in reliable sources of fact and is relevant to the subject's notability. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also done the service of removing the reference to future events. The Coffee Party does not have not-for-profit status, and using Wikipedia to schedule and promote events is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Even non-profits do not enjoy that privilege here. The Coffee Party, of course, is free to list those events on its official site and its Facebook page and I would encourage you to look for them there if you are so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. You were the person who inserted the reference to future events, here, after I removed it. Please do not ad future event scheduling to Wikipedia articles. Please do not misrepresent edits; it would also be helpful if you logged in to your account prior to editing, and also signed your comments here by appending four tildes (~~~~) to the end of comments. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I moved the following new content edit here for discussion, for several reasons:

While Tea Party people use tactics that discourage civil discussion and use fear-mongering, the Coffee Party recognizes a need for civility. The Tea Parties represent a very wealthy top-down organization of people who will gain the most from reduced taxation and less government services and programs, they are astroturf. The Coffee Party is a grassroots, bottom-up organization recognizing that government has a role in providing health care, affordable education, and addressing our crumbling infrastructure.

First, the content is worded as a statement of fact, but it is cited to an opinion piece source. Second, statements like "they are astroturf" are not directly supported by the opinion source (he notes both organizations have wealthy benefactors, but doesn't mention the "deception" necessary for Astroturf). While there may be factual content in your edit, you will need to either support the facts with non-opinion, reliable sources, or phrase the content as the opinion of an individual. (I would not suggest the latter, as opinions typically need to be established as widely held or from prominent sources to be included.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Insertions of info about other groups

Since there are SEVERAL different Facebook pages claiming to be the Coffee Party, that needs to be addressed. DarkHorseSki (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still the controversies over the origins of the "Coffee Party" which are completely unaddressed. Evidence indicates that the page indicated in this article is really not the truly original coffee party. The Campaign for Liberty was hosting "coffee parties" a good month or so prior to the Democrats co-opting the name. DarkHorseSki (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Coffee Party USA. If there are other 'Coffee Party' organizations that are notable, we can create Wikipedia articles for them as well. You will need to provide citations to reliable sources for these "controversies" of which you speak. Please see: reliable sources for more information. Please do not continue to insert unsourced content into Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start an article on the "Real Coffee Party"? That appears to be what you are trying to link to in this article about Coffee Party USA. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong to say they are unrelated. All those parties are directly related in great part because of the deliberate actions taken by the founder of this one particular party. Including the information about the other "coffee parties" is directly relevant. AND, many of the other changes you have removed were properly sourced and verifiable.DarkHorseSki (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong to say what is unrelated? I don't believe I have said anything of the sort, and a word-search confirms that. As for the "properly sourced and verifiable" content, the link to the CfL page and the "Real" Coffee Party page do not mention the topic of this article at all. When you add content to the article, that content must also be present in the sources you cite. This has not been the case. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you and I do not agree on what is related and what is not. Since I can and will provide details showing how other groups have referenced this page thinking it was related to them, I can demonstrate how it is pertinent to include that info. I think we should take this to a 3rd party to arbitrate because I have provided links that can be used to verify what I have posted. DarkHorseSki (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read above. I have not made any comments on what is "related and what is not." I am merely requesting that you please provide citations to reliable sources to substantiate your edits. You have not yet done so. You are welcome to bring this to the attention of whatever additional parties you wish. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My citiations are reliable (or at least they work when I click on them.)DarkHorseSki (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Reliable source does not mean a link that works when you click on it. Please read up on it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that the links must not be working for you, because otherwise they meet the criteria specified by Wikipedia and are as useful as many of the other links and references that exist on this page.DarkHorseSki (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You assumed incorrectly. Now that you have realized that, I'll reiterate my request that you please provide reliable sourcing to substantiate your edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the links and they dont say anything about this group. They are obviously for other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabicaDark (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the controversy that is being pointed out. It is relevent in the same way that similar names are treated for corporations and other entities. Plus, there is plenty to suggest that the origins of this pages name were deliberately chosen to co-opt the name from the originators of the term. DarkHorseSki (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a reliable source describing this "controversy". There is nothing describing a controversy on the website links you've been inserting. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The links prove the controversy, read through them and you will see the controversy discussed except in the Campaign for Liberty which simply proves they had the name first.DarkHorseSki (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not how we source content here at Wikipedia. We don't give a link to a website, then say "It's there in that website somewhere, happy searching!" If you are going to insert contested information into an article, you need to cite a reliable source — an actual source that other editors can verify — that meets Wikipedia's RS standards and directly conveys the same content you added. You have not done this. Also, repeatedly inserting disputed content without first addressing and resolving the dispute is not condoned. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Moved here from personal talk page. -X) Okay, I hope this is the method by which you prefer to communicate. I believe your undo's are violating the Wiki etiquette. I've provided links that prove the statements made, even if that means you must take time to read and review a lot of information to realize that. The links are at least the equals of several of the other references on the site. Even if you disagree with one point that does not give you carte' blanche to wipe out everything as many of the edits are completely indisputable. DarkHorseSki (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are discussing the edits here, then they are obviously not 'indisputable'. If you have added content, and it has been removed, please discuss it here and resolve the dispute instead of continuing to insert it — edit warring is not condoned. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek & Mother Jones articles

Newsweek posted an interesting story about the CP, The Coffee Party Heats Up, a few days ago. It looks like a good source for this article. Cheers, CWC 05:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The thrust of that article seems to be on the difficulties of maintaining their basic premise of civil and collaborative discourse among people holding widely different viewpoints. On the other side of the same coin, this Tea Party, Meet Coffee Party article offers an anecdotal success story, albeit on a small scale, demonstrating a measure of success. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CWC, Newsweek isn't a reliable source (but Mother Jones apparently is). Furthermore, this is article the Coffee Party's official press release, so not even the mildest criticism is permitted. No discussion of Park's self-admitted "hard work" on the Obama campaign or the party's funding from leftwing organizations, even when the information comes from the party's own website.

Newsweek does meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements, and no, the Newsweek article is not a press release. Park's article does indeed mention she worked on various political campaigns, including those of Webb and Obama, but this isn't an article about Park. As for funding of the Coffee Party, relevant and reliably sourced information is welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Park's background is perfectly relevant because she runs Coffee Party USA. It's ridiculous to suggest her admitted "hard work" on the Obama campaign should be omitted from a balanced article. I sourced the Coffee Party's funding by citing to the Coffee Party's own site, but that was vandalized. As to Newsweek, you knew perfectly well that my comment about it being a reliable source was a joke -- my point being that you'll NEVER allow any of the criticism contained in that piece to surface in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the only bit of information alluded to from the Newsweek piece is its incorrect statement that the Coffee Party has 200,000 "members" -- which has been mischaracterized as a statement regarding Facebook fans, something the Newsweek author did not say.

Washington Post Facebook Discussion Corrected

This article original said: "Bloggers and reporters comparing Facebook statistics noted the Coffee Party USA page has overtaken the DNC's Organizing for America and the one-year-old Tea Party fan pages in membership." However, what the Washington Post article cited actually said was this:

"Within the past 10 days, its Facebook fans rose from 3,500 to more than 9,200, which is far more than the 5,900 fans of the central page of Organizing for America, the DNC-funded group supporting President Obama's agenda. What does that mean, though, when nearly 100,000 Facebook users have joined the Tea Party Patriots Facebook page and 1.5 million have joined a joke page titled "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?" "

So, in fact, the Washington Post did not ever report that the Coffee Party page had overtaken the Tea Party in the Facebook fan count, but rather that it was still far short at the time, and that Facebook fan counts are essentially meaningless because a joke page far surpassed both the Coffee Party and the Tea Party. The edited section now reads:

"The Washington Post noted that the Coffee Party's initial 9,200 fans surpassed the 5,900 fans of the DNC's Organizing for America, but observed that number might not be meaningful when compared to the Tea Party Patriot page's then-total of nearly 100,000 fans, or the 1.5 million fans of a joke page titled "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?" A blogger later noted the Coffee Party USA page had overtaken the Tea Party Patriot's fan count."

This re-writing clarifies that (1) the Washington Post was only stating that the Coffee Party had overtaken the DNC page and the statistics weren't generally meaningful and (2) only the blogger noted that the Coffee Party had overtaken the Tea Party in the Facebook fan count. However, I am concerned about leaving the blogger's commentary in, because Wikipedia generally doesn't consider bloggers to be "reliable sources", and the particular blogger in question is not of any particular prominence.

Thoughts?TruthfulPerson (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Facebook Section was vandalized by restoring the previous version which grossly mischaracterized the WaPo story. The redo was allegedly performed to correct "POV pushing." However, my correction did the opposite -- it eliminated the POV pushing through the erroneous suggestion that the Washington Post had (1) reported that the Coffee Party had surpassed the Tea Party and (2) thought that Facebook statistics were meaningful.

You are correct that WaPo did not compare the Coffee Party membership to that of the Tea Party Patriots. The cited blog did that comparison - that is why the content said "reporters and bloggers"... You are correct that blogs may be flimsy sources, so I added a citation to Mother Jones, which notes the same thing: The Coffee Party membership has surpassed the Tea Party Patriots membership.

The WaPo article did not state the membership numbers were not meaningful, they questioned what the meaning was, and didn't offer a conclusion. As for the 'Pickle' page, it no longer exists. We could insert a line to the effect of "...but larger memberships exist on other pages", but that seems a little pointless and self-evident. In passing, please don't throw around the word "vandalized" when none has occurred. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xenophrenic, I can read, and don't need your bad faith commentary. Please don't address me anymore. In any event, I've resolved the problem by reproducing the exact quote so there'll be no need for interpretation (using full quotes seems to be the norm when quoting Annabel Park). I've also corrected the Newsweek discussion; the magazine said 200,000 members, not merely Facebook fans, so I've recorded that fact along with an illuminating historical comparison. I'll also be adding COPIOUS quotes from the rest of the Newsweek article reflecting the internal politics of the Coffee Party.TruthfulPerson (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Illuminating historical comparisons" aren't necessary, and unsourced as that one was, also inappropriate. As for the Newsweek content about the Facebook numbers, it is sourced to this content:

One night in January, she signed on to her Facebook page and ranted about "the false narrative that the tea party is the real America." Her friends picked up on the post and it led to the creation of the Coffee Party. Within days, thousands of people signed up on Facebook. [...] The notoriety didn't really hurt: the group now has more than 200,000 members, and every status update Park posts gets about a million views.

They are definitely talking about Facebook. The "status update" wording is about Facebook. All three cited sources support the 200,000+ Facebook membership. Whether Newsweek is also conveying that means the "Coffee Party" movement also has 200,000+ members, irrespective of the Facebook group that was set up, is unclear. We shouldn't make that assertion unless reliable sources are clear on that point. As for adding quotes from Newsweek about the internal politics of the Coffee Party, you must be viewing a different article - I don't see a lot of "internal politics" stuff there. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Discussion of Tea vs Coffee Party Double Standard at Big Journalism

This heavily-sourced article nicely contracts the deliberate over-hyping of the Coffee Party with the denigration of the Tea Party, a bias which is reflected by Wikipedia's coverage of the two parties (see how much criticism and bloggy leftwing slander is permitted in the Tea Party's Wikipedia page).

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/04/27/a-tale-of-two-parties-would-you-like-coffee-or-tea-with-your-liberal-bias/

While the link you provided is not to a source that meets Wikipedia's reliable source standards for factual content, there might be some further links at that site to information that could be useful at the Media bias article. I didn't see anything useful there for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Attendance figure

As there seems to be an edit war going on over whether to say there were 80 people in attendance in one rally, or a different figure. The Newsweek article said at one point "all 80 hands" stayed down, but I don't see that as an official attendance figure. "80 hands" could be 80 people, 40 people, 80 people who were there at a certain point of the meeting, or an author's estimate on something else. Needing to tag the meeting with crowd size (either way) seems to be POV to me, and should have a actual reliable source to indicate a gigure, and not just a mention in passing. Dayewalker (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. It should be removed. --Morenooso (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also don't see "it was a packed house" as being very informative, either. Unless you know how big the venue is, "packed house" means nothing. "Packed house" could very well also be eighty, for that matter. Dayewalker (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Events section

We have an entire section built on one source. That, itself could be troublesome. Anyhow, here is the version last posted by me. It was rapidly reverted by 2, maybe 3 editors depending on IP's true identity. UPDATE!!! It turns out that IP 76.234.21.200 is actually Morenooso. I was bored and checked that questionable IP, who has an edit smack dat in-between Morenooso's infinite editing of Norman Francis McFarland.

• On March 27, 2010, co-founder Annabel Park joined one of almost 500 Coffee Party meetings that day across the nation. During one of the meetings, Park tried relating to centrist principles, but "when someone asked how many people in the room were Republicans, all 80 hands remained down." As some people in the crowd stood up to speak their minds, Park learned that some were not there to set an example of civility. As reported in Newsweek, "They were angry. They hated the Tea Party, and the Republican Party. They wanted to get even. One audience member said America was under the thumb of oligarchs and denounced 'moneyed interests.' A few people hissed when Sarah Palin's name was mentioned. Also on hand were the usual suspects drawn to the C-Span bat signal." Some in the crowd even decided they wanted a new leader for the movement, "not someone that says we can all work together." Park said later, "If they want to fire me, this may not be the group for them. We don't want conflict and confrontation."

Any issues? I personally added the quote: "when someone asked how many people in the room were Republicans, all 80 hands remained down." I took no part in the rest of this section. MookieG (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS and the Refimprove tag require citations to accompany WP:MOS style edits like this. --Morenooso (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What? I can make a reference for the one cite [in this section] to follow every single sentence. Is that better? Please read post above. Regards. MookieG (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What information are you trying to convey to the reader with the content you added? The "tried relating to centrist principles" doesn't sound anything like, "Park, a 42-year-old Korean-American with a smile that can only be described as 'kind,' regularly tried to steer the talk back to the group's more centrist principles." I just don't see the connect between "relating" to something, and steering the talk back the group's centrist principles. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying she "tried relating to centrist principles" is my way of not plagiarizing "tried to steer the talk back to the group's more centrist principles." I thought I did a decent job of keeping with her message that attempted to keep conversations as non-partisan as possible. MookieG (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a semantics thing, but in my neck of the woods "tried relating to" means "tried to understand" or comprehend -- and frankly, that is just the opposite of the situation as described by the source. Park had a very good handle on the group's centrist principles (no 'trying' about it), and was trying to steer the attendees to those principles. May I ask again what information you are trying to convey to the reader with the additional content? Is it that Park "attempted to keep the conversations as non-partisan as possible?" Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can word it however you like. My entire edit was due to some POV editor who used the cited source to state the attendance, out of place and begging to be reverted. Since that editor isn't the only one here fueled by their own POV, I made it proper and acceptable. It's a good edit for the article, especially the section it's part of. MookieG (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I can "word it", I need to know what it is I'm rewording. You really can't tell me in your own words what information you are trying to convey to the reader? If you are trying to convey attendance, I don't believe the cited source tells us. I can try to find a source for that, but it isn't really relevant - a packed coffee house sounds like barely a few more people than I pack into my SUV when I go camping. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• @Xenophrenic. This edit is quite odd based on your stated grievance. Did you forget to mention other issues you may have? Also, removing the additional citations for verification tag seems highly inappropriate. Care to explain? Please feel free to make self-reverts instead. MookieG (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to sweep away the citation tag - I'll put that back. May I ask what content is lacking in citations at the moment? (Oh wait, is that what Morenooso is talking about below?) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here the section of WP:RS that applies when direct quotes are used: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Quotations. In a nutshell, It is important to make clear the actual source of the text as it appears in the article as per WP:V and WP:CITE. --Morenooso (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the cites are there, but there may be a positioning problem. Maybe the citations should be dispersed throughout the segments of text, instead of lumped up at the end of the paragraphs... Xenophrenic (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)