Talk:Annabel Park

Year Of Birth

As per the information contained in this article, Annabel Park had already turned 41 years old as of December 2, 2009. Therefore her birth year had to be 1968 and not 1969 (precise date still unclear).71.146.18.42 (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Compliance of the BLP and entry reversion.

I found it interesting that I keep getting entry reversion by a single user. Who referred me to the BLP. The additions made were in reference to Annabel Parks employment with NYT, UnitedForObama YouTube page and I made some formatting corrections. As one can see in Xenophrenics entries there are numerous formatting and references problems. I didn't remove the content applied but instead correctly located it. The material added I was referred to the BLP I am assuming in reference to NPOV. Based on NPOV alone Korea Times is not a valid source for information on House Resolution 121, Korea Times is not neutral on this issue. However Korea Times POV on 121 wasn't referenced. The reference was merely valuable to point out Park was employed to politically organize 121. How is this different than Breitbart's equally emotional report of the Coffee Party which contained a valid outline and reference to Parks work history with her Linkedin profile, which was recently removed? Neither have NPOV but both have verifiability. Political Career is simpler and more accurate than Political Activism and Career separated.

As another editor has said you can not use youtube and pajamas whatever as sources. She was involved in youtube videos to help the Obama campaign but you need to use real sources that say so. Who wrote the paychecks for her employment with 121?

Right on the YouTube one, thanks! I removed the unreferenced opinion sentence but the first sentence is verified and properly sourced.

The 121 Coalition, a national coalition representing nearly 200 civic organizations and Park was the National Coordinator. We both know that lobbyists and the core coordinators are compensated. I am not undermining the value of 121 and due to the size and scope of the 121 coalition it was undoubtedly a full time job for Park. But to imply that a large political lobby is unfunded is ignorant. Anyhow, do you have any tips for finding paychecks for lobbyists and their administrators? We know she was also the founder of Korean American Community Coalition at that time which is funded by corporate sponsors from Korea and America and personal donations. Also KoAmCo was a member of the 121 Coalition. I think it would be a bit much to go rifling through tax docs but once again if you know where to legitimately start for stuff like that point me in the direction and I will start.

Both of you, please sign your comments (just append 4 tildes to the end like this: ~~~~).

I will be removing the YouTube citation again. It does not meet the sourcing requirements required by WP:BLP (in addition, it doesn't even support the content cited to it). I will also be moving the content about her NYT job outside of her political activism section, because (as others have pointed out to you) it does not belong there. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A film

Ms Park and Mr Byler directed a film named 9500 Liberty. See here. I'll let someone else add it to the article. Cheers, CWC 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party as a "fact-based" "non-partisan" alternative

1) None of the sources that this sentence, "She is a founder and defacto-coordinator of Coffee Party USA, a fact-based, non-partisan alternative to the Tea Party" cites ([1], [2] and [3]) describes Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" 2) As per WP:WEASEL, at the very least the terms "fact-based" and "non-partisan" used to described Coffee Party USA needs to be removed.

2 fairly good reasons as to why the description of Coffee Party USA as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" needs to go.Galafax (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for observing WP:BRD and bringing your concern to the talk page. After reviewing the cited sources, you are absolutely correct that none of them describe the Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan." Good catch! Obviously, this has been deficient for some time and needs to be corrected by either adding the appropriate source, or removing the labels "fact-based" and "non-partisan" based on your concerns about weasel wording. I will go look for such a source right now... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Found it! It was on the Coffee Party website. Click on "About Us" and you'll see it contains this statement: "We are a non-partisan, fact-based, solutions-oriented network..." etc. Per your concerns, it's now added as an additional reference cite at the end of the sentence. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but that statement is published from a self-published source and needs to be qualified as such.Galafax (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a "self-published" source? According to WP:SELFPUBLISH,

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Since the website in question isn't a self-published source by Annabel Park, making claims about herself, but rather the website of the Coffee Party organization, making a statement about the Coffee Party in a self-identifying manner, it isn't a self-published source under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Of course, it's still a "primary source" (as opposed to a secondary source), but that is permissible and isn't a problem the way it's been used here either. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the section most relevant here is WP:ABOUTSELF seeing as how the claim about Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" was found on a website published by the Coffee Party. According to that section, it lists five conditions that self-published sources must meet if it is to be used as a source for itself. In the context of the Coffee Party house sentence, it violates first one, namely that the description of Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" is self-serving (we can debate whether that's true or not later) And until we settle the debate about whether Coffee Party's description of itself as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" is or is not self-serving, the jury's still out as to whether or not the use of this source is permissible. Galafax (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a much simpler solution here, as it appears you are focusing on whether or not the Coffee party truly is "fact-based" and "non-partisan"; we can simply add text in the article to indicate that they are "self-described as". A self-published tag is not necessary in that context. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When I went to look at the article just now to make that change, I see you've already done that! However, you left the "self published" tag in, and also deleted the portion about the Coffee Party being an alternative to the Tea Party, something which was commented on in reliable secondary sources. I will make those adjustments now, and add a relevant source citation. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about the self-published source point and the redundancy of putting the tag. As for the alternative to the Tea Party comment, that's an opinion about the Coffee Party USA and should go under the relevant section under the Coffee Party USA article.Galafax (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that editors on Coffee Party are opposing your labeling of the Coffee Party as "progressive". You should probably resolve the issue there before trying to insert the label here. Also, please don't strip out the source citations. This article previously said that the Coffee Party considered itself to be an alternative to the Tea Party, it just didn't have a cite; now it does, from a reliable secondary source. If you disagree, let's discuss it rather than stripping out the material. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, under the reception's section of Coffee Party USA, sources have already identified the grassroots political movement as left-leaning/on the political left; what I'm trying to do is give that political label about Coffee Party more prominence in the context of the article. As for stripping out material (in this case, material that was WP:UNDUE) the burden of evidence is on you to show why the material should be restored WP:BURDEN.Galafax (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should probably resolve any prominent "progressive" label issue over at CP USA, where more editors are currently discussing it, then import the results back here (whatever they may be) to the Park BLP. Doesn't that make more sense? With regard to stripping out the CP's perception of itself as being an alternative to the TP, I'm not sure why that would be WP:UNDUE. Can you explain some reasons why you feel it is undue to include that? Also, WP:BURDEN is part of the policy on verifiability and speaks to situations where no sourcing has been provided, in which case the burden is on the editor who wants to include it. However, reliable sourcing isn't the problem here, so perhaps you could better explain your concern regarding WP:BURDEN as well. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BURDEN applies to sources where the reliability of the sources is not in question (in this case, it is because the WP:ABOUTSELF source violates the first condition, which is that the self-published source promotes the subject in question in an undue manner). Anyway, I think a better solution would be to just remove any description of Coffee Party and just leave it at Annabel Park founded Coffee Party USA.Galafax (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The better solution would be to resolve the identity question about the organization first, on that article's talk page, and then update this page accordingly once that is resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so stop adding in material that's in dispute at the moment.Galafax (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, there is something we should clear up here immediately. This article has described the Coffee Party as "an alternative to the Tea Party" since December 28, 2010. That's more than a year and a half. It is not "new material." Further, the primary and secondary sourcing with this statement is legitimate and does not run afoul of any Wikipedia policies:

...that considers itself to be a "more thoughtful and reasoned alternative to the Tea Party."

Galafax, you've made it clear that you oppose this by removing and reverting it from the article along with the citations three times in the past 7 hours, here, here, and here. Don't you think that if multiple editors are undoing your reverts, it would be more appropriate work it out here on the Talk Page and discuss it instead of continuing to revert? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I've so many three reverts is because you and Xenophrenic happen to be tag-team editing this article which is unsurprising given your rapport with that user. As for the changes you suggest, I'm all for your suggestion about adding primary and secondary sources and how they don't run afoul of any Wikipedia policies, which is why I find it curious as to why you'd object to the "progressive" label/description for Coffee Party USA cited to a reliable secondary source. (I'll add a new label describing Coffee Party USA that's cited to a reliable secondary source) As for the alternative section, this article isn't a coatrack for opinions and competing opinions about Coffee Party and so shouldn't have a place here. Galafax (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)