Talk:Coffee Party USA

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)

He may be an editor, but he's also a news columnist, so his reporting on the emergence of an increasingly diverse group is relevant, and was done more than a half a year after the group was formed. As for the rest of your personal opinions, they don't seem relevant to this issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Political Positions

This section seems misleading. For example, the phrase "National Coffee Summit" isn't defined (and its name implies it was an actual summit, taking place in a single location). It would more accurately be described as small meetings held on the same day across the nation.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/press-release-coffee-party-usa-announces-national-coffee-summit-coffee-congress

In addition, feedback wasn't gathered systematically from any of these small meetings. That point is simply finessed in this entry by saying "it was determined". My understanding is the Coffee Party was founded with the mission of opposing money in politics, and after issuing the press release about the "nationwide summit," they followed it up by claiming it "was determined" that the members had agreed with that mission.

It's more of an issue in the second part of that sentence, saying it was determined after "several votes and polls utilizing internet technology." The vote presented users with a yes-no choice -- should we address the corrupting influence of money in politics (yes or no). Even then, a tiny fraction of the group's members voted. (They had to hold the voting open longer to try to get more votes -- is that what they mean by "several votes"?) At the time, some members speculated that the vote count was low because people had wanted more choices upon which to vote. Also, the 95% number seems suspect -- it depends on how you define "member," and I think they meant to say that of the much smaller number who actually did vote on the limited choices, 95% of them voted in favor. Maybe my real issue is with the verb "determined." It might be more accurate to say that after the polls, the Coffee Party then announced their sense that the overwhelming concern of it members was money in politics. Otherwise it seems inaccurate (and propagandistic) to claim the founder's original issue enjoys a monolithic and homogenous support.

There was a recent change in the leadership of the group, with allegations that they founders refused to make the group more democratic. I think this entry should cover that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.17.194 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

From the cited source:

The Coffee Party recently ran a National Coffee Summit, followed by a Café Call and a National Vote, using information and internet technology to reach across the country and determine members' main concerns. Overwhelmingly, the core issue was determined to be Money in Politics with 95 percent of members voting for a specific course of action, based on support for the Fair Elections Now Act, the DISCLOSE Act, the Shareholder Protection Act and a constitutional amendment to reverse corporate personhood.

As for changes in leadership, etc., which sources would you cite? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party as a "progressive" grassroots political movement

Coffee Party is a progressive grassroots political movement not just a grassroots political movement; describing it as merely a grassroots political movement (see changes here [1]) implies that the political movement is ideologically neutral which in the case of Coffee Party USA is clearly not true. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia allows the political positions of sources to be cited so unless editors AzureCitizen and Xenophrenic have good reason to object, I can't see why the word "progressive" shouldn't be used to describe the Coffee Party political movement.Galafax (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources showing the organization as progressive, or that they self-identify as such? Dayewalker (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Ben Smith article. Also, putting in adjectives with which the Coffee Party USA self-identifies only is an example of WP:SELFPUBLISH.Galafax (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the Smith piece is about a spinoff group, and reinforces that the Coffee Party isn't progressive. Also, putting in adjectives with which the Coffee Party USA self-identifies is an example of WP:ABOUTSELF. See this link. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article states from the start very clearly that the party is progressive or at least progressively-oriented ("The movement, co-founded by filmmaker named Annabel Park, was initially seen as a progressive alternative to the Tea Party." [2]) I have no idea where anything in that article supports your conclusion that the Coffee Party isn't progressive, but then again that's just your conclusion based on your own opinion/original research/whatever. "Putting in adjectives with which the Coffee party USA self-identifies is an example of WP:ABOUBSELF" Ah yes but I never accused Coffee Party USA of calling itself a "progressive" party, only as "fact-based" and "non-partisan". Galafax (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The piece to which you refer certainly does not state that the Coffee Party is progressive. Smith claims it may have been seen (not "is") as a progressive alternative "initially" (as in past tense), and then goes on to note:

Park, however, says she intended the group to be centrist and non-partisan. She at one point weighed legal action to prevent the left-leaning faction from using their copyrighted logo after Darrell Bouldin, a Tennessee-based activist, started an offshoot called "Coffee Party Progressives.

...that's where your "progressive" organization is, and the rest of Smiths's article is spent explaining that, and intended legal action against it. As for your confusion about policies on using self-sourced content, that is understandable seeing as you've only been editing here for 2 days. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I lost you after you said I was incorrect. I think you must have missed the part in quotation from the article where it mentions how the movement is "initially seen as a progressive alternative to the Tea Party." Anyway, if you have a problem with whether or not the Smith article explicates Coffee Party's political position as "progressive," the Washington post source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505517.html) does a good job of clearing any doubt about Coffee Party's progressive orientation. As for the confusion about self-sourced policies, ah no no confusion there I understand that self-published sources can only qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia be used under certain conditions. On the other hand, it's nice to know you edit this page from a perspective essentially plagiarizing I mean repeating Coffee Party USA's narrative from self-published sources describing itself as (http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/annabel-park-why-coffee-party-non-partisan non-partisan) (They do not, however, have a political ideology, and they are non-partisan.) Galafax (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nice that you consider the Coffee Party as progressive, but we generally avoid using such peacock terms because they sound too much like advertizing and promotion. The Coffee Party makes no claimes to being "ideologically neutral"; in fact, they adhere to some rather strict ideologies with regard to civility, informed discourse, etc. They do not, however, have a political ideology, and they are non-partisan. Yes, Wikipedia "allows the political positions of sources to be cited", and there is a section of this article called, coincidentally, "Political positions" where that is done. You are encouraged to add well sourced content on their political positions in that section. "Progressive" isn't a political position, it's an adjective — one that doesn't apply here. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're getting a bit confused here. The word progressive is a shorthand for progressivism (or leftism) which has an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to explicating the political position for which that word stands. I'm using the word progressive in that sense, not in the normative sense of "progress, improvement or reform." Your welcomed to think that the Coffee Party doesn't have a political ideology or that they are "non-partisan" but of course Wikipedia will need something more than a self-published source to verify that. Many thanks however for pointing out the political position section of the article I actually wasn't aware that that section existed. Galafax (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No confusion at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the issue over inserting a "progressive" label into the Coffee Party is spilling over (no pun intended) from this article to the BLP on Annabel Park, as our fellow contributor Galafax labeled it progressive there as well just a short while ago (see reverted diff). The issue should probably be resolved here first, as it's the main article on the Coffee Party USA. Does anyone here disagree that it should be resolved here first? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable place to start. I've just reverted a significant series of edits that introduced content not supported by the citations, removed summary info from the lead, and introduced factual errors as well as re-introducing "progressive" (and liberal, pro-government, etc.) yet again. I removed a similar edit from the Park BLP that said the Coffee Party "was described as...", and gave one cherry-picked example out of hundreds (probably the least encyclopedic, too) from a source. The Park article is certainly not the proper article to start coatracking competing views and contentious opinions about the subject of a completely different article. I have yet to see a reliable source "describe" the Coffee Party as any of these adjectives; they merely refer to it as such, usually in passing, and then fail to substantiate that reference. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)