Talk:Coffee Party USA/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

The official and original “The Coffee Party” organized by Gerard Canta was established September 13, 2009 for “Healthcare for America, Healthcare reform, lower premiums and coverage for all”. Officers are Gerard Canta (Director) and Ken Volok (Administrator) Vicki Abelson (Media Chief), Jan Bidwell (Trustee), Daniel Ortega (Trustee), Ashley Rothschild (Honorary Co-chair), Maureen Dowd (Honorary Co-chair)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerard Canta (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Now, you may wish to read conflict of interest and not edit this article. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:06, 8 July 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

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

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. (redacted)

• 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)

I've removed a segment above as per WP:OUTING. If an editor feels there are sockpuppets editing this article, or a WP guideline has been violated, please file a case at the appropriate noticeboard. Simply defining it as truth here violates WP:OUTING. Dayewalker (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You may not understand WP:OUTING, but I take no issue with the removal as I believe you are acting in good faith. MookieG (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage

The media section doesn't appear to be real informative. They've been covered by the top three cable news networks and the top three newspapers -- and countless other national and local media. Now it's just a non-informative list. The section isn't needed, and the links to news coverage would still be present at source citations. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. As a fan of WP:BRD, I've moved the entire section here for discussion:

A spokesperson for Coffee Party USA, Alan Alborn, gave two interviews for KSRO Newstalk 1350 radio in Santa Rosa, California.<ref>KSRO News Talk Radio Interview with Coffee Party spokesman</ref><ref>"Coffee Party Spokesman Al Alborn ROCKS THE HOUSE in two radio interviews".</ref>

The Coffee Party movement has been covered by CNN,<ref>CNN</ref> Fox News Channel,<ref>Coffee Party Aims for Civil Discourse Fox News Channel</ref><ref>Tea Party Movement has competition: COFFEE PARTY (March 13!)</ref> the New York Times,<ref>New York Times</ref> the Washington Post,<ref>Washington Post,</ref> the Seattle Times<ref>Seattle Times</ref>, CBS <ref>CBS News</ref>, the BBC,<ref>"Coffee Party brews up rival for Tea Party". BBC News. March 14, 2010. Retrieved April 30, 2010.</ref> and have been televised on C-SPAN.<ref>Civic Engagement and the Political Process C-SPAN Video Library</ref><ref>Open Phones C-SPAN Video Library</ref>

Some of those links are already in the article (NYT, WaPo). Others are not very informative (Seattle Times, Fox). A few look potentially useful as sources: the BBC and CNN reports on the March 13 meetups, the CBS profile of the CP (dated March 12). The C-Span videos would probably be good as External links. Cheers, CWC 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Attendance Synth?

An IP is adding an attendance section to the article, which says "Coffee Party event attendance varied from 60 attending the March 27th Morristown, NJ event to the event in Meadville, PA with a single attendee." The "sixty" attendees figure is sourced to a testimonial section on the Coffee Party's website, and doesn't specifically give a high number for attendance. It seems like synthesis to me to read pullquotes, and assume the highest figure given is the actual largest total of attendees. Likewise, it seems undue to scour the web for a mention of one Coffee Party meeting where only one person showed up, and hold that up as an example. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor may be confusing this organization with groups like the Tea Party movement, who actually base much of their credibility on how many people they have show up in one place. Coffee Party emphasizes productivity, discussion and small numbers (note their choice of venue: 10-25 seat coffee houses; not public parks, stadiums and National Malls), not large groups waving signs, screaming and creating media theater. Attendence numbers aren't relevant to the topic of this article, at least right now. If reliable sources start noting that Coffee Party starts caring about how many people they can pile into one place, then we can add related content to this article.

All that aside, the IP editor was conducting his own original research, against Wikipedia policy. Nothing in his citations stated what or where the biggest meeting was. He just inserted his own "investigative reporting" into the article, basically stating that '60' was the biggest number he could find. That provides a good lesson as to why we need to rely on reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards instead of our own research. There have been many gatherings larger in number than '60', but that isn't really article-worthy content. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor, 68.197.132.206 (talk), has twice inserted a much lengthier list of individual Coffee Party attendance numbers at locations around the country from March 27, 2010. I've reverted and asked that he or she come to the Talk Page and discuss what the purpose of this edit is. The only thing posted in their edit summary is "A chronological list of meetings from reliable sources" which is a description but not an answer.--AzureCitizen (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope the IP comes to the talk page. Without proper explanation, their edits seem to be original research in an attempt to push a POV. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have (tried) adding more comprehensive attendance figures. Is it a Tea Party Activist that keeps removing them? There are figures available fro several dozens of recent events, and the wikipedia page for the Tea party lists these, shouldn't they be listed here as they represent Coffee Party influence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.132.206 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of people that gather for discussions at meetings doesn't represent, or have anything to do with, the influence of the Coffee Party organization. As noted above, it appears you are confusing them with Tea Party-type organizations. By the way, such a list does not exist in the Tea Party movement article, and the partial list you entered certainly isn't notable enough for its own article. What information did you hope to pass on to the reader with this partial list? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Political positions

(The following question was moved here from a user's talk page for further discussion.)
Please explain how this is a POV edit with non-RS sources. Truthsort (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit linked above inserts the word "liberal" into the article lead as a description of the organization. Coffee Party USA is not liberal, centrist, progressive, or conservative. The group welcomes everyone and embraces diversity -- ethnic, geographical and even political diversity. Coffee Party spokesman Camron Moore, a self-identified Republican, said the movement is neither liberal nor conservative, and even Tea Partiers are welcomed to crash their party. While some of the original organizers have liberal backgrounds, the organization itself doesn't have a liberal platform. Editing the article to convey that description without substantiation would be a POV edit.

As for the sources, that edit deleted a Washington Post source citation and replaced it with a citation to the non-RS opinion site, The American Thinker. The edit also inserts an opinion from a news aggregation site, and a dead-link (presently) to an Al-Ahram site. None of the cited sources gave substantiation to the "liberal" misnomer they used, by the way. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ASSERT, it allows for facts about opinions. We should state what the media views them as. If you want, we can add that the group states they're non-ideological. It was a mistake on my part replacing the Washington Post link. You have not explained why the American Thinker does not meet WP:RS. You also state that the edit included a news aggregation site. I'm assuming you referring to the source from The Week. The Week is a weekly news magazine. It is not a news aggregation sites. KMOV is a CBS affiliated tv station in St. Louis and not a news aggregation site either. The Al-Ahram link is not dead. As far as the sources not giving "substantiation to the 'liberal' misnomer", The sources state, "the Coffee Party was formed as the more liberal response to the Tea Party movement", "a new movement called the Coffee Party is emerging as an alternative for frustrated left-leaning voters", "The liberal answer to the Tea Party movement -- the Coffee Party -- was taking form". Truthsort (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the Al-Ahram site no longer says the "Service is Unavailable". Still, neither that site, nor the others you have mentioned, gives substantiation for their use of the 'liberal' misnomer -- they just use it. They don't explain what it is about the Coffee Party that supposedly makes it 'liberal'. Unlike the Tea Party supporters and leaders that proclaim without hesitation that they hold fiscally conservative tenets, the Coffee Party supporters and leaders have not made similar claims, liberal or otherwise. As you have shown, it is possible to find media sources that refer to the Coffee Party as liberal, but you have not provided sources that explain how the Coffee Party is liberal, or even that the "media views them as liberal"; the latter being just a synthesized observation. I haven't followed the subject closely; do reliable sources exist that substantiate the various and conflicting labels used? If it is a liberal organization, I would think the organization would say so, wouldn't it? It would be self-defeating not to. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why it is so significant that a source has to describe why it is liberal, just to confirm that it is a liberal alternative to the tea party. A mention of the group being a liberal alternative is enough. We are not discussing how it is liberal, but simply that it is a liberal alternative. Nevertheless, one source states Though the coffee party is not affiliated with any party, most members are liberals who say the tea party's antics have left a bad taste in their mouths. Truthsort (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"A mention of the group being a liberal alternative is enough."

Therein lies the problem. You say that as if it were a statement of fact. There are sources that refer to it as liberal, and sources that say it isn't. In addition, the organization itself refutes such labels, and its mission statement makes such labels nonsensical. Faced with this contradiction, I figured I'd ask you if you knew of any reliably sourced reporting on how the organization is or is not liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, etc. -- and an explanation how any of those could be, given that their mission statement would make such labels impossible.

As for the "most members are liberals" assertion, at least that could be possible -- especially back when the fledgeling organization was only five weeks old, when that article was written. Support and membership has more than quadrupled since then, so it would be interesting to know what the present composition of the organization is. I know that professional polsters have looked into the demographics and politics of Tea Party supporters; are you aware of any similar studies of the Coffee Party supporters? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then we have two descriptions. The organization can say all they want that they are non-ideological, but there has been a different labeling of them in reliable sources. Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance allows for both descriptions for balance. You also haven't stated why the American Thinker is not reliable. Truthsort (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Two descriptions? Far more than that; I've even seen sources referring to them as "centrist", "non-ideological", "moderate", "Democratic", "non-partisan", "independent", "left-leaning", "less conservative", and on and on. Sure, per Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance, we could add a statement that says "The Coffee Party is centrist, liberal and conservative; the organizers say the group is none of those, and is non-ideological", but that seems cumbersome and doesn't really inform the reader. That's why I was pushing you for sources that actually explain why they are or are not [insert label here] -- or, as the NPOV policy you cited suggests: "secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Let's find those sources.

As for American Thinker, I haven't stated why it is not a reliable source. If I were to do so, I would explain that it is an opinion source, so it would not be a reliable source for an assertion of fact; but it might be a suitable source for certain opinion. However, inserting fringe opinions, regardless of source, is another matter entirely. American Thinker isn't a suitable replacement for a Washington Post citation. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be valid, and compatible with WP:NPOV, for us to report The American Thinker's opinion without accepting it as fact. Truthsort (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it really wouldn't be appropriate. Per WP:NPOV: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Perhaps when a Google News search of "Coffee Party"+"Astroturf" comes up with significantly more than zero hits, we can revisit that. (I read that opinion piece, by the way, and he fails to support even his own opinion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the view of the publisher of the American Thinker. Their work has been cited in reliable sourcing. You seem to be mistaking "the views of tiny minorities" with the views of significant minorities. Truthsort (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I see an additional complication: the Coffee Party has changed quite a bit from the original ideas, and we have to be careful about when sources were written. I'd prefer to quote from their current description of their political position than use a source more than (say) 3 months old. (Do we have a good source for a statement such as 'The CP was initially conceived as a liberal alternative to the Tea Party movement'? If so, we should probably use the appropriate past-tense statement.)
IMO, without another reliable article about the current aims and activities of the CP, we'll just have to leave this article somewhat incomplete. (Also, I'd like to read such an article.) Cheers, CWC 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the group might be in the media spotlight again in two weeks, albeit probably not for more than a single 24-hour news cycle, when they have their first annual convention. Maybe some actual reporting that we can use will come out of that; it would certainly be more current coverage. I wonder if Republican Mark McKinnon knows he will be conducting a day-long session on "The Constitution & Special Interest Money in Politics" at a convention that some folks would like to paint as "liberal". Should be interesting, at least. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

9500 Liberty & formation of Coffee Party

IP 166.137.9.81 has entered an out-of-context quote from a news article about the impetus behind the formation of the Coffee Party. It wasn't informative, and was incomplete with regard to the context from which it was removed. The fuller context of what she was saying is also covered here. The information could find a home in the article if it were complete and informative, and not just a disjointed quote that makes no sense where it was placed in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The quote was perfectly in context. In fact, the SOLE purpose of the quote in the Louisville paper was to explain the origin and history of the Coffee Party, which is why the quote appears where it does in the Wikipedia entry. Xenophrenic has claimed the quote was out of context without providing the context in which it appears. That omission appears deliberate, because the context conclusively refutes his claim. Here is the relevant passage from the article:

---

Park is an unlikely protagonist — a diminutive 42-year-old documentary filmmaker who lives outside Washington, D.C., and says she didn’t attend health care town hall meetings last summer because she wasn’t comfortable standing up publicly for her beliefs in an atmosphere that she said had turned toxic.

But while she was filming a documentary about a battle over immigration in Prince William county in Va., Park said she saw anger and division that reminded her of her native Korea, which is still split between the north and the south, 57 years after a truce ended most hostilities there.

"I was shocked to see it unfolding as it did," said Park, who added that lies were used to inflame the public on immigration issues.

"When there is really hysteria, it is hard to get people to sit down and listen to the facts," she said.

So in January, she sent out an email to friends on Facebook, the social networking site, in which she called for them to fight back.

...

Park said she is worried that the “toxicity” in public discourse makes it impossible for people to come to agreement on issues and makes many of those who would otherwise become involved decide instead to avoid the fray.

“Most people are risk-averse or conflict-averse,” she said. “They are not going to go out and be subject to almost violence.”

---

Your insertion does not help explain the origins of the Coffee Party. It does not explain that she felt the political environment had turned toxic, and that lies were being used to inflame the public on issues, as the article explains. "When there is really hysteria, it is hard to get people to sit down and listen to the facts," she said. Your insertion does not even explain that Park was referring to her documentary filming, and misleadingly implies it was about the content just before it. It has been removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now also added the Twitter commentary from Park in January 2010 which like Facebook comments is directly relevant to the formation of the Coffee Party. Consistent with Xenophrenic's advice, I have used a blog as a source because the blog reproduces the tweets and is that a "reliable source" for its content. Xenophrenic himself used the unknown Political Cartel blog to document the Tea Party/Coffee Party Facebook fan statistics, so using a blog to introduce Twitter data is the same thing.

I haven't given you any advice; you might have me confused with another editor. I've removed content that cites a non-reliable source to assert fact unrelated to that source. Would it be possible for you to more fully explain what information from that source you'd like the article to convey to the reader? There might be more suitable sources available that convey the same content. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Xenophrenic wishes to remove a contributor's fully sourced, in context reproduction of actual quotes from CPs founders, the edits will remain in the article pending discussion because the burden rests solely with him to present a coherent case for their removal.       —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.102 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the policy backwards. The burden of substantiation and sourcing is on the editor introducing the disputed content. In particular, content about named individuals (such as the CP founders) must also follow the more stringent WP:BLP policy as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonproductive comments removed per WP:TALK. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed a sentence stating 350 people attended the conference. That was an incorrect interpretation of the source which was describing a discussion involving 350 people. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources re convention

I was hoping for some good coverage of the Coffee Party's convention in Louisville last weekend (Sept 24-26, 2010), but all I've found are two items in the local paper, The Courier-Journal:

1. "Coffee Party, a Tea Party alternative, to meet in Louisville" Thurs 23 Sep
2. "Coffee party urges voters to get involved at Louisville convention", Sat 25 Sep

Has anyone else found any good Reliable Sources about the convention? CWC 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Newsweek, The New York Times, CNN, NBC and CBS cover the convention? This grassroots movement quickly eclipsed the Tea Party in size shortly after it began in January, so I assume it must have been exponentially bigger by September. Have you tried a Google News search?

As far as a reliable source, does a blog of the size and quality of The Political Cartel qualify? I know that for many months, that blog was cited here as a primary source regarding the relative size of the Coffee Party versus the Tea Party. Have you checked to see it that blog covered the convention, and, if so, it provided links to coverage by other reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.244 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that blog actively follows the Coffee Party. I do see that blog is cited to support content saying that blogs were comparing Facebook statistics. As noted above, the best way to find related sources would be to do a Google search. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Membership Section Still Irrelevant, Misleading, Inconsistent and Outdated

As demonstrated in part in discussion section 15, the Facebook section of this article is seriously flawed.  Its apparent purpose is to promote the highly dubious proposition that the Coffee Party is political force equal or larger in membership and strength to the Tea Party.  However, it not necessary to debate the ridiculousness of that theory to show why the section needs to be either deleted or drastically revised:

 (1)  Facebook fan or "like" statistics are not a reliable source for the membership for any group or movement.  There is no other WIkipedia article that uses them to gauge the size or popularity of a group, movement or politician.  The statistics aren't scientific, or representative of anything except that some Facebook subscriber has taken a half-second to click on a mouse.  So there's no reason whatsoever for this section to be included in this article.  If there is any reliable source that has actually reported on the Coffee Party's membership it could be restored, but I haven't seen any.  In fact, the only probative stat I've seen -- the "350 plus" attendance at the national convention -- was deleted from this article without cause or reason.

(2) The comparison with the Tea Party Patriots Facebook page is improper.  The Tea Party movement isn't encompassed by that single page.  There are many Tea Party Facebook pages, independent websites, and local parties and chapters. While it may be true that the Coffee Party "movement" is primarily a web-based organization run from the Coffee Party' USA's official page and Annabel Park's Facebook page, the Tea Party is not Internet-centered like that.  So it's apples and oranges.

(3) The sole source for the Facebook comparison indicating that the Coffee Party surpassed the Tea Party Patriots on Facebook is an unknown, tiny blog called the "Political Cartel."   It is not a reliable source.  In fact, I've never seen any attempt to defend it as such.  Instead, I've seen quips that it's reliable for its facts or content with regard to the Facebook stats.  That is a silly justification, because that can be said of ANY blog whose facts or content one believes to be true.  Plainly, citations to the Facebook pages themselves would be far better evidence, but the editors of this page cooked up the pretext that they were improper primary sources once the Tea Party Patriots page started edging ahead of the Coffee Party page in fans.

Wait a minute. You just spelled out the reason for your confusion. The source for the comparison between Tea Party Patriot fans and Coffee Party fans is the Mother Jones interview article, not the blog. As I told you before, and will patiently continue to tell you until you finally comprehend, the blog was cited in support of the text that said bloggers (itself) were making comparisons, too. Not just the WaPo and MJ reporters. The citation to that otherwise non-RS blog is in compliance with Wikipedia policy that allows citing it in support of content about itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(4) The section misleadingly implied that some "reporters" from the Washington Post compared the Coffee/Tea Party stats when in fact the Post compared only the CP and the DNC.  This was justified as technically accurate because the sentence referred to comparisons by "reporters and bloggers" (i.e. The Political Cartel) -- a reference made to deliberately confuse which source was comparing which stats, and which actually strongly suggests that many reporters and bloggers were making both comparisons.  The sentence is therefore as dishonest as the statement "President Obama and Jeffrey Dahmer support universal healthcare and cannibalism."  

(5) The joint blogger/WP reference is additionally misleading because the Post was clearly questioning (and impliedly denigrating) the value of Facebook fan statistics.  Specifically, the Post asked "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?'" I believe the only response I receive to this observation before was the non sequitur that the Nickelback page doesn't exist any more (according to that editor's original research, presumably).  Indeed, that response only tends to weaken the argument for Facebook statistics, as it shows that Facebook pages come and go rather quickly.

(6) The section is inconsistent with respect to its terminology regarding the statistics.  It refers to Facebook "membership" when discussing how the CP surpassed the TP, yet refers to members who "like" the page when presenting the statistics showing that the TP surpassed the CP.  Plainly, both references were to the exact same fan statistics.  The only reason for the difference in terminology appears to be a POV-pushing attempt to imply that the later statistics are less meaningful (like a fan poll rather than membership statistics).  Although a pretense is made that the language was merely taken from the sources, that assertion is plainly false.  For example, the Newsweek article merely refers to CP membership, not Facebook membership, yet the editor changed the language to clarify what was meant.  Accordingly, identical terminology should be used to describe all of the identical statistical references employed in the various sources.

(7). Finally, the section is outdated and gives undue weight to the fact that the CP's Facebook page had more fan "likes" than one of the many TP Facebook pages sometime in early to mid-2010.  If this factoid ever had any relevance, it has zero now that CP had its national convention in September and reliable sources reported on the attendance figures.

Accordingly, I recommend complete deletion of the Facebook Membership section.  In the alternative, I propose it be replaced by the following langauge which much more accurately presents the statistics:

"The Coffee Party surpassed 141,000 Faceboon fans during its first six weeks. Newsweek noted the Facebook membership had surpassed 200,000 in April, and every status update back then received about a million views. The Washington Post, comparing Facebook statistics, noted that the Coffee Party USA page had overtaken the DNC's Organizing for America fan pages in membership, although it questioned the meaningfulness of any Facebook page statistics. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, by September 2010 Tea Party Patriots had over 450,000 fans compared with the Coffee Party USA's nearlt 300,000 fans." 

Comments?  Objections? I'd like to delete, replace or otherwise improve the section by next weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.146 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I agree with your overall premise that the "Facebook" section isn't all that useful, perhaps now irrelevant, in this article. It was informative when it was a subsection of the Origins (or History) section, as it helped describe the initial interest in the group. The fact that it surpassed similar OfA and TPP pages in just weeks (an actual fact, despite the low quality sourcing you have been complaining about) was intended only to illustrate popular interest in the startup group. Since then, editors have moved it into its own dedicated section where it has unfortunately become a sort of "which movement is leading now" scoreboard as the Facebook fan numbers fluctuate.

Your analogy about apples & oranges is spot on. Tea Party Patriots does not represent the whole TP movement. In addition, the Coffee Party isn't structured on numbers of people, but on quality of results. It is a common misconception that since the Coffee Party formed, in part, as an alternative to the Tea Party, then it must somehow operate the same way as the Tea party: large crowds in public places, spectacle and media attention. It doesn't. Your comment above about "350 plus" shows me you may also have fallen under that misconception. You do realize that convention, while open to anyone that registered, was held for chapter leaders to get together to lay the groundwork for their future activities, right? While Tea Party activists would hold a noisy rally with signs, crazy costumes, bullhorns and thousands of attendees, the Coffee Party focused on discussions and workshops, in the 500-seat capacity conference hall they rented, designed to identify and implement their immediate objectives. Trying to compare and contrast TP and CP based on people counts, whether on Facebook or at their respective events, is not only misleading, but also nonsensical.

What do others think? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I must say I'm rather insulted by your response.  My objections were to the utter irrelevance of the section, its poor and deliberately misleading sourcing, and its inconsistent terminology. You pretend to agree (while avoiding most of my specific points), but ultimately suggest the problem has been solved by moving the exact same deliberately misleading language to a lower part of the page.  Incredible.  And most of you commentary is simply your unsourced, soapboxed opinion about how the Coffee Party is quality as opposed to the unwashed quantity of the Tea Party.  While it's very nice that you think you have some special knowledge of the Tea Party covention mechanics, they aren't remotely relevant to the issues raised by the section.

(1) Are you going to insist on retaining the cite to the Political Cartel blog?

(2) Are you going to continue to misrepresent what Facebook statistics the Washington Post was actually comparing?

(3) Are you going to continue to omit the language from the WP article questioning the value of Facebook statistics?

(4) Are you going to continue you policy of continuing to include what you personally believe to be "actual facts" despite your admission that there is no reliable source?

(5) Are you going to continue to insist that the initial Facebook stats are relevant to interest in the CP start-up, despite you admission that comparisons of unrepresentative Facebook pages are apples and oranges?

(6) Are you going to continue to insist on inconsistent terminology -- "membership" versus "likes" to describe identical fan statistics?

(7) Do you have any objection whatsover to (a) deletion or to (b) the replacement language I have proposed?

(8) Is it your intention to simply retain the section as it is forever, and merely invite discussion which you are going to completely ignore?

(9) Do you agree to implement the necessary change by next weekend, or to permit me to delete or replace the section absent a coherent response by you?

I invite specific point-by-point responses actually addressing the points I've raised, rather than additional unsourced personal opinion regarding the merits of CP versus TP. 

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.146 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with your premise that the Facebook comparison section is irrelevant and not useful, in the first paragraph of my response, making a point-by-point address of the rest of your post unnecessary. I agreed with you, and left the floor open to other editors to chime in before removing it -- two of which have already done so below, in agreement with us. I in no way "suggest the problem has been solved by moving the exact same deliberately misleading language to a lower part of the page"; I noted that movement as part of the problem (perhaps you should re-read). I am sorry you feel insulted by my response, 24.193.146.146 — 207.29.40.2 — TruthfulPerson — 166.137.xxx, that wasn't my intent. You don't need to continue to re-explain your opinions about the Tea Party versus the Coffee Party, I am very well aware of them; my response remains unchanged. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think those facebook numbers were never that informative, and have become basically irrelevant with the current direction of the CP. So I think the article would be better if that section were deleted. Cheers, CWC 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One helpful thing we should get away from when both discussing this article and it's subject is this whole Coffee Party vs. Tea Party meme. What we need to do is focus directly on the Coffee Party and ignore the Tea Party. If you want to compare and contrast, then that should be done in another article. While I agree that Facebook numbers can be dubious, I think those numbers should not be the focus of this article and if the Coffee Party is not interested in how big their movement is, counting the number of people who show up, or how many people are in their movement, the nether should we. Also, along with my earlier point, we should stay away from other movements, their characterizations (Whether good or bad.) of the Coffee Party, and just stick to the Coffee Part. Brothejr (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A-men, Brotheir! Too many of us got caught up in the CP-vs-TP narrative (myself included). Cheers, CWC 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I got rid of the TP Patriots versus Coffee Party stuff. I also added some section headers and refs, but the article still needs a significant amount of work. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the article could use some work. (Example: if I recall correctly, Amy Kremer had to pull out of the Louisville convention because of illness). Cheers, CWC 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, recall reading something about Kremer cancelling at the last minute due to illness ... but never heard about "food poisoning" specifically, so I removed that. I wonder if her pulling out warrants mentioning at all; I wouldn't want it to make it appear as if she "chickened out" or something. Sources do show she accepted the invite, and later "confirmed" that she would be attending. Do you have sources that cover the situation in more detail? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Potential Improvements

This article appears to suffer from a distinct lack of balance. In particular, it appears in large part to merely parrot Coffee Party USA press releases and rely largely on quotations from Coffee Party officials and the Coffee Party website. Additionally, it omits relevant information regarding the history and nature of the Coffee Party. With this in mind, I offer the following suggestions for improvement.

First, rather than being about a "movement", this article is clearly about a single organization, the Coffee Party USA. I don't see how this can be seriously denied. ONLY the Coffee Party USA's website and its officials are referenced for any position statements, events or activities. The Coffee Party USA has a distinct registered legal status and an official advisory board. Spin-offs like the Coffee Party Progressives are not mentioned. Although this article's authors may believe there is some larger movement distinct from the CPUSA, that is merely POV-pushing and is not supported by any of the cited sources. Accordingly, the reference to "movement" should be relaxed by a precise identification of whatever profit or non-profit status CPUSA enjoys. There is no shame in this: indeed, there are large organizations such as the Sierra Club and the United Way which significantly affect society, but they are not accurately characterized as movements.

Second, the article fails to fairly contextualize the history of the movement. I recall seeing a prior draft of this article which related a number of Ms. Park's Twitter messages from January 26, 2010, the very day the organization was found. They were decidedly uncivil remarks about the Tea Party, and they cast her same-day Facebook pleas for civility in a completely different light. Apart from being reproduced at numerous blogs, the statements are still available on Park's Twitter account and were reproduced on a page of the Coffee Party USA's official website, so sourcing is hardly an issue. There is no rational justification for promoting a narrative based on Park's Facebook page while concealing a simultaneous one evidenced on her Twitter feed. It is downright deceptive, and again constitutes POV-pushing of the most transparent kind.

Third, in a related objection, I see that reliably-sourced newspaper quotes from Parks in which she compared the division in the US to North and South Korea were removed. I found this startling. The pretext (from reading the discussion above) seems to have been that she was talking about a documentary. In fact, any fair reader of the full quote would see the relevance of her quote to CPUSA's founding. The deletion again appears to be POV-pushing, an attempt to protect CPUSA from embarrassment. Notably, I see that at the Tea Party article numerous attempts are made to discredit the movement based on isolated signs at large rallies, whereas here, actual, document quotes from the organization's own officials are banned.

Accordingly, I recommend that the article designate CPUSA as an organization rather than a movement and that the various statements by Ms. Park be restored. NeutralityPersonified (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with most of this. It's a well-written article, but contains no criticism section while the Tea Party has a long one and it's very complimentary to the organization. BS24 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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)