Talk:Coffee Party USA

Characterization of CP as "Movement" Not Supported by Reliable Source

The reference to CPUSA as a "movement" is not supported by any reliable source. As discussed above, the sole subject of this article is a single organization. The cited AP article clearly calls it a "group", not a movement.

I see that an editor attempted to cure this obvious defect by adding a link to an opinion column entitled "Tom Eblem: Coffee Party prepares for national convention in Louisville." However, an opinion column is not a reliable source. It is merely an opinion. In this case, it is the opinion of Tom Eblen, who, as noted, is identified in the very title of the column as the source of the opinion. He is further identified as a "columnist" immediately above the title of the article. Accordingly, Tom Emblen's opinion cannot be used as the source for the statement that the CPUSA group is a movement.

I further note that Mr. Emblen describes the CPUSA as "a loose coalition of Facebook friends." If, indeed, Emblen's opinion were to be used as a reliable source, accuracy would dictate that the CP be described upfront as "a movement consisting of a loose coalition of Facebook friends." However, since Tom Embien's opinion as contained in an opinion column entitled "Tom Eblem: Coffee Party prepares for national convention in Louisville" is not a reliable source, quotes from that opinion column should be excluded entirely.

It appears that an editor reverted BS24's accurate characterization of CPUSA as an "organization" with the comment "returned sourced content; editor is advised to read more closely.". However, the removal of Mr. Emblen's opinion as a source was appropriate for the reasons discussed above. I do not understand the request to read more closely. When I did, I saw it was an opinion piece by Tom Emblen, not a reliable source. And to the extent the editor was referring to the use of the word "movement", I again note that the quote was incomplete and contradicted by the only RS cited -- AP -- which called it a "group."

According, absent a legitimate, good faith objection, I will be subtituting the word "organizaton" for "movement" and removing the cite to Tom Emblen's personal opinion in 24 hours. I believe this expedited time frame is fair and reasonable, given the gross violation of Wikipedia's sourcing rules that the use of the word "movement" represents. Also, absent any reasoned objection, I shall be implementing the changes set forth in the previous section (history of CP etc) over the weekend. NeutralityPersonified (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much research you did in analyzing this concern, but the Coffee Party being described as a "movement" is supported by reliable sources. Take a look at a few here: Christian Science Monitor, NY Daily News, CNN, CBS News, etc. Google searches for "coffee party" + "organization" yielded 29,200 results, while "coffee party" + "movement" yielded 149,000 results, about 5X greater. Hope that clarifies the "movement" issue for you and puts things in perspective. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen,

I did plenty of research, in fact! Did you? Doesn't seem so.  Let me help you out here (you're welcome!)

First, A comparative Google search is not what we Wikipedian's call "a reliable source."  Do you understand that?  Even if it were, it would be disqualified on the grounds of being something called "original research.  Do you understand that?  Please affirmatively signify that you do understand both of those concepts -- "reliable source" and "original source" -- before you leave any other responsive commentary.  If you don't, I'm not going to discuss this issue with you further.

Second, my very specific objection was that the characterization of the Coffee Party USA as a "movement" was not supported by any reliable source.  It wasn't, and still isn't.  The only source currently cited is the Tom Eblen column -- not a reliable source! Do you see any other source cited for that proposition? I don't.  As I noted, the AP article (the only other source listed) calls it a "group."

Third, the name of the article is "Coffee Party USA."  While you may believe that there is something called "The Coffee Party movement" of which CPUSA is a part, this article isn't about that movement.  It's about a GROUP called "Coffee Party USA" which has a very distinct legal existence.  

Fourth, NONE of the articles that you NOW provide (in the discussion section) are cited in the article.  So there is no reliable source supporting the proposition that the "Coffee Party USA" is a "movement."

Fifth, none of the article you NOW provide (in the discussion section) supports your argument. As preliminary matter, all of them were about the CPUSA's future plans to kick-off a movement, not the existence of a movement itself.  However, if you do plan to NOW cite any of those articles, please be advised that ANY change you make will be edited to include the following context of each article:

Christian Science Monitor:  The article characterizes the "movement" as "a liberal-esque and pro-Obama answer to the conservative tea party movement."  If, in fact, the CSM is cited as a RS for the proposition that the CPUSA is a movement, then it is an RS for the proposition that the CPUSA is"a liberal-esque and pro-Obama answer to the conservative tea party movement" and that quote SHALL be quoted a co-equal fact.

New York Daily News:  The characterization of the CPUSA as a "movement" rests entirely on Annabel Park's invitation for others to join the "movmement" by friending her CPUSA Facebook page.  If we are to rely on the statements of the CPUSA's organizers as evidence it being a "movement", then is it fair to rely on the statement in that same article by Brendan Steinhauser that "This Coffee Party looks like a weak attempt at satire or a manufactured response to a legitimate widespread grass-roots movement" and THAT quote shall be quoted as a co-equal fact.

CNN:  The article also clearly identifies the CPUSA as a "group" and identifies Annabel Park as "a volunteer for Barack Obama's presidential campaign and Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia's 2006 campaign." It starts off by stating that the "Coffee Party movement deemed its official kickoff Saturday" -- clearly referring to individuals running the group.  A "movement" doesn't "deem" events successes or failures.  

CBS: The CBS piece likewise describes the Coffee Party as an "alternative, more pro-government group" and quotes only Park and other of the organziation's organizers as sources.  Again, the article is about Park's future plans to start a movement -- noting that the group didn't even have a platform.

Free free to substitute any of these sources in place of Tom Eblen's personal opinion piece. Failing that, I will make the change from "movement" to "group" tomorrow.  Similarly, since you have not addressed any other the additional points I've made in the previous section, those changes will be implemented this weekend.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the strange impression that I was saying I think comparative Google searches are "reliable sources," perhaps you could clarify that. What I did say was that there are reliable sources indicating the Coffee Party is a movement. You've written much to the point that you feel the Tom Eblen column is an opinion, and that you want it removed - that's fine, I will take note that you feel opinion pieces (such as editorials and blogs) shouldn't be used. Following your suggestion, I will put in the reliable sources above that I chanced across earlier with a simple Google search for "Coffee Party" + "Movement". However, I don't think some of the items you referred to above (in re: "that quote shall be quoted as co-equal fact", etc) would be appropriate in the contexts you've suggested, so I will be looking at those edits closely per WP:BRD.

You said I didn't address any of the other points you'd made in the previous section - no, I did not, and hadn't intended to. However, I see now that you were commenting that you feel the history section should discuss Ms. Park's twitter messages at the start of the Coffee Party movement. I'm afraid that since we agree opinion pieces shouldn't be used, web cites such as this blog will not be acceptable. Perhaps you can find some new reliable sourcing for that without raising any original research concerns. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party Political Activity

I've added a section on the CP's fielding of a candidate in the 2010 midterms. Since this article is constantly comparing the CP to the Tea Party as a force in the political arena, the information is certainly notable. It's certainly as notable as the extensive section on the CP's annual convention.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CP didn't "field the candidate". A citizen, who happens to be CP member, signed up as a write-in candidate at the 11th hour, because he noticed the republican candidate for that position was running unopposed. You'll note he's also a member of the "Beer Party", but they didn't "field" him either. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To suit your apparent stylistic preference, I'll substitute the word "had" for "fielded" as used by the reliable source I've cited. If you have a reliable source for the other opinions you've expressed, you may of course supplement the entry and note the conflict.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a minor candidate who does not warrant inclusion in this article. Neither reference supports the quote in the addition and one of the sources doesn't even mention the Coffee Party, referring to the candidate as a Democrat. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Gobonobo is right. So is Xenophrenic (as usual). Also, the CP's website does not mention "Jeff Read", so this guy was not backed by the Coffee Party USA. (Maybe he got some support from other 'Coffee Party' groups?) Furthermore, running candidates would contradict the current C-P-USA focus on education and raising the tone. So Mr Reed should not be mentioned in this article. CWC 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What the CPUSA's website says matters not one whit, as there's a reliable source that says the Coffee Party had a candidate. Perhaps when you were conducting your impermissible original research you couldn't find it because you misspelled his name. In any event, the pretence of this article is that the CP is sone "movement" rather than a specific tax-exempt entity so it doesn't matter what CPUSA's non-reliable, partisan website says.

Reed's candidacy is notable because another pretence of this article is that the CP is some huge grassroots national force which rivals, if not exceeds, the Tea Party in political influence. That thesis is seriously undercut by Reed's 162 vote garnering candidacy, a fact which should be noted for balance. Certainly, it's more notable than the Facebook "likes" which this article continues to promote as some measure of influence (and which should be removed). Question: The Daily Caller is a reliable source? Just want to know because I'd line to use it for some additional edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NeutralityPersonified, please stop adding the paragraph about the minor candidate. There is a consensus not to include this. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Gononobo, No there's not. Take it to moderation if you so like, along with you dispute over promoting non-notable Facebook figures. Also, I'll discuss any input I have here, so don't you ever again leave another false and threatening message on my user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I agree with the current consensus to leave the candidate out of the article, based on the reasoning above. Dayewalker (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be OK with mentioning Jeff Reed as having been a candidate associated in some way with the Coffee Party movement, but I do not believe the Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper) can be deemed a sufficiently reliable source on Coffee Party membership to accept a claim that Reed was officially endorsed by the Coffee Party based on this one source alone. And in any case, the accusatory put-downs evident in the above text have absolutely no place in Wikipedia discussions and need to stop NOW (see WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:TPG, and probably a bunch of other policy and guideline pages which I can't think of at the moment). Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to Save America

The organization also helped inspire college students at Wesleyan University to make a video titled "I Have Sex — students speak out against ideological attack on Planned Parenthood" which opposes the elimination of federal funding of Planned Parenthood. (Link-1) (Link-2)

I can't find any sources that indicate this is a "Political position" held by Coffee Party USA. Sources do mention that two leaders of the movement, Park and Byler, visited Wesleyan during a showing of their 9500 Liberty documentary, and discussed student activism and film making -- in particular, the UK Uncut movement. One blog post by Park says:

"The original video was the result of a brainstorming session with Coffee Party founders Annabel Park & Eric Byler following a screening of their film, 9500 Liberty. Byler filmed this video as Park described the work of UK Uncut and US Uncut to bring attention to the fact that budget deficits are the direct result of unpaid taxes, and tax policy that allows large corporations to avoid paying taxes, and not the fault of hard-working Americans." (Blog-1)

Another blog post by Park indicated it is the student movement doing the inspiring:

"We're inspired by an exploding student-led movement to demand reality-based policy instead of ideology-based policy from Congress." (Blog-2)

The content should find a home in the article, but the "Political positions" section isn't the proper section for the current text. It might be possible to reword it to convey that the Wesleyan video is just one byproduct of a much larger campaign, described: here. Suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic! After reading your comments I'd agree, it really doesn't belong in the political positions section; rewording it to be a byproduct of a much larger campaign makes more sense. I haven't had a lot of time to edit lately though so I'll leave it to yourself and other editors if you think it's valuable enough to potentially expand on the larger campaign and find better placement in the article... --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Update; Accurate Reference to Politico Articles

(1) It was previously agreed that Facebook "likes" were irrelevant and I've removed those irrelevant, outdated statistics as was previously agreed, along with a host of POV-pushing, self-promotional material taken from the organization's website. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's organization.

Hi. Could you please provide a link to this agreement to which you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) My previous edits which accurately reflected the schism in the Coffee Party as reported twice by Politico have been restored. (Personal attacks upon editors redacted. -Xenophrenic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The "schism" alleged by Politico's Ben Smith was also refuted in those same sources, with additional refutation here. There doesn't appear to be significant turmoil here, as the organization doesn't have an issue with any other organizations (outside of reasonable trademark concerns), and constructive criticism given by 3 former volunteer interim board members was taken as such. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of POV Statement that CPUSA"has since grown into an increasingly diverse organization"

The first sentence of the article asserts that the Coffee Party "has and has since grown into an increasingly diverse organization." This is simply some editor's opinion, and is not supported by the sources cited. Additionally, most of the sources are from March 2010, before any "growth" could have occured. Nor can the reader have any understanding of what the meaning "diverse" really means. Beyond this, the entire article is about a single organization run and closely controlled by Annabel Parks and Eric Byler, not some broader movement. Accordingly, that unnecessary interjection of the editor's opinion has been removed.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)