Talk:Coffee Party USA

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

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

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

I've reviewed the "sources" identified and I have to agree that the sources do not come anywhere close to proving the assertion regarding the controversial phrase. (Personal attack removed) DarkHorseSki (talk) 16:27, 17 Sept 2011 (UTC)

What part of "an increasingly diverse group of members is emerging" wording from the source, specifically, do you feel doesn't "come anywhere close" to conveying that the group has grown increasingly diverse? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This section (above) is difficult to understand. What is true is that the Coffee Party is "run and closely controlled by Annabel Park and Eric Byler" (the name is Park, not "Parks"). It is not diverse, it is strictly "centrist". And, increasingly since its formation, it has become less diverse, less tolerant of diverse opinions and meaningful political discourse, and more tightly controlled by its centralized organizational structure. ---Dagme (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have the wrong group. Park and Byler, while founders, do not run and closely control CPUSA. In fact, their influence in the group has steadily diminished since its founding, as leadership roles were filled and organizational committees were assembled. Your view of the group might have applied immediately after its founding, for about 2 weeks. You wrongly conflate its membership with its political positions. The membership is all over the place, with extreme conservatives and liberals and everything in between represented, which results in policy and advocacy appearing "centrist". You should check out their website and update your outdated view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabicaDark (talk • contribs) 02:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask both of you for direction to information that supports your assertions. (Your insider tone prompts me to ask in passing if either of you are 'involved' in this group; the possible Arabica reference to coffee is not lost on me.) I haven't kept up with the recent activities of the group, but this management outline indicates that Park has stepped down to an advisory role more than a year ago. Interestingly, is that 'our' Jimmy Wales I see on that list? A brief review of their website does indicate they are striving to be a "transpartisan" group, with a primarily "get the money out of politics" agenda focus. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Increasingly diverse

(Personal attack removed) insists on retaining, in the lead, that the Coffee Party has become increasingly diverse. This is based on the claim that it's in the sources. Now, it was not clear what "diverse" means in this case--race? political persuasion? sexual preference?--though after some prodding that was, well, improved on a bit. Now that same editor (Personal attack removed) insists that the term "increasingly" needs to be retained. Unfortunately it is entirely unclear what the standard is to which this "increasingly" is measured. Perhaps those sources explain that--perhaps the editor can then improve on that sentence. Xenophrenic, this is just common sense, and the proper use of English. Now please remove that term or I may have to put a "copy edit" tag on the article. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for more fully explaining your concerns, Drmies. Your "perhaps those sources" phrase leads me to believe that you haven't read the cited source material. Given that new information, I can better understand your confusion over the "increasingly diverse" phrase in this instance. Just so we're clear, I have never insisted that the term "increasingly" be retained, only that relevant, reliably sourced phrasing not be wholly excized simply because an editor doesn't fully understand the context. It would be, in my opinion, far more productive to improve the context and meaning being conveyed.

In a nutshell (as I understand from the cited sources), the Coffee Party was formed and introduced as an alternative to the Tea Party, and as such, it initially garnered a lot of interest primarily from those who did not support the Tea Party -- i.e.; moderates and liberals. But as the sources show, the Coffee Party quickly became increasingly diversified as more independents and conservatives joined, while lefty partisans grew disgruntled and left. Even Tea Partiers joined the Coffee Party; a Republican designed the Coffee Party website; Conservatives in greater numbers spoke at their meetings. That's the context of the "increasingly diversified" phrase, which was at one time better spelled out in the body of the article, but I don't disagree with you that it could be more clearly presented in the lead. I'll take a stab at it. Hold your horses on tagging the article, please, as we both know what "proper use of English" is (*cough* Mr. "into an diverse organization"). Tagging stuff doesn't remedy the problem any more than wholesale deletions; let's see if we can fix it to both our liking. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This comes up periodically. One of the sources for the "increasingly diverse" verbiage is here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Increasingly diverse, again

This edit contains what Park said. I don't see what issue that Xeno or Azure have with this edit. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the source citation that says that Park herself said that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Park (and others in the Coffee Party) have also said it, but as noted above a couple times, one source is here:

Park, who volunteered in Obama's campaign, said that because of the Coffee Party's origins as a reaction to the Tea Party movement, it has appealed more to liberals and moderates. But an increasingly diverse group of members is emerging, and she hopes libertarians and conservatives will attend the convention. One daylong session will focus on the U.S. Constitution and whether it should be amended in response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for more special-interest money in politics. That session will be led by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor, and Mark McKinnon, a former communication strategist for former President George W. Bush and John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee...

Park said the first part. Eblan, the reporter, said the "increasingly diverse" part, and he appears to be very careful about saying "[Name] said" (or using actual quotation marks) when information is attributed to someone else. He also goes on to name a former Republican and current Republican to emphasize the point. Also, there is this source from their first few weeks of existence which notes another form of diversity:

The crowd of about 40 – visibly more diverse than the average tea party gathering – included school teachers, a dreadlocked guy, young children, and even a visiting reporter from Le Monde. Despite their caffeinated drink of choice, the people who gathered here were not nearly as hard-charging as the tea party crowds who took to the streets last year, including the hundreds of thousands who packed into Washington on Sept. 12. Even so, one of the overriding messages that emerged is not all that different: Washington has lost touch with reality, meaning Americans are being taxed without proper representation.

An IP suggested "it needs to indicate who said it", but I don't think we need to attribute it to Eblan unless it has been challenged as a factual statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You see what you want to see. The only way to come to your comclusion is to parse the words to ignore the second "she". There is no indication that the reporter is performing their own research into the issue and if they really are a reporter than they have no reason to impart their own opinion. Park said it, there is no reason to not believe it. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Until this is resolved here on the Talk Page, the article should reflect the standing consensus. Repeatedly reverting and forcing in "she said" without working towards a resolution here is edit warring, plain and simple. Remember, it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRR, and the longstanding article version has never included "she said". Getting to the issue, I'm not seeing anything in the sourcing indicating Parks made the statement. If you disagree, please point out exactly where she said the the Coffee Party has "grown into an increasingly diverse organization" by a cut-and-paste quote with a link. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what the long standing version was, the source quotes her as saying it. I will not resort to pedantic quoting just to suit your POV. Now unless you have a valid reason for not attributing this extremely minor factual point I see no reason to continue this attempt to cloud the issue. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying she is quoted as saying it, but you've repeatedly dodged requests that you point out exactly where that is. Until evidence is provided in the form of citations and quotes, there's no good reason for changing the article to "she said". That would really just be an attempt to suit your own POV when you think about it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The section is quoted right above. "Park, who volunteered in Obama's campaign, said that because of the Coffee Party's origins as a reaction to the Tea Party movement, it has appealed more to liberals and moderates. But an increasingly diverse group of members is emerging, and she hopes libertarians and conservatives will attend the convention." I realize that you are trying to change the context of the sentence to imply that the reporter gave his opinion about the movement, but the fact is she said it. Why do you feel the need to disregard this? Arzel (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to use the way you've formulated your own words in reply: "I realize that you are trying to change the context of the sentence to imply that Parks said it, but the fact is that reporters have made these comments about the diversification of the movement over time. Why do you feel the need to... (fill in the blank)." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate. You are reading the source in a way to see what you want to see. Why do you wish to ignore the obvious? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to put that right back to you: You are reading the source in a way to see what you want to see. Why do you wish to ignore the obvious? Also, please observe WP:BRD and stop trying to force the article to your preferred version; the edit warring is getting tiring. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You know what is tiring, is your inability to put forth a logical argument, any argument for that matter. Now, I have fulfilled the D of BRD and you have yet to provide a rational response to the D. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't made any convincing arguments to support your claim. You have only pointed to this quote:

Park, who volunteered in Obama's campaign, said that because of the Coffee Party's origins as a reaction to the Tea Party movement, it has appealed more to liberals and moderates. But an increasingly diverse group of members is emerging, and she hopes libertarians and conservatives will attend the convention.

Nowhere therein does it say that Parks said the movement was becoming more diverse. That's clearly your own inference, reflecting your personal POV that it was merely Park's opinion that the Coffee Party was becoming more diverse, rather than a reporter commenting on the realities of a changing movement. You still disagree? That's fine. But you do understand that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source that says Parks herself said it before we'll agree to this change, right? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the quote, it is not my fault that you are unable to read what it says. Arzel (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I can read just fine; nowhere in that quote does it say "Parks said". I've noticed with your frequent reverts (despite the fact that you're the one wanting to change the long standing state of the article, not the other way around) that you have now switched tactics to just trying to remove the statement "It has since grown into an increasingly diverse organization with members from across the political spectrum" outright since your pushing to add "Parks said..." has been resisted. Per the prior arguments above, this is also opposed. Stop serially reverting and make your case here in this Talk Page section as Wikipedia's customs and norms expect you to do so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the cited source has been modified, corrected or appended in any way since the above discussion. Yet an editor made this problematic edit, which I have reverted pending a substantive explanation. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Annabel Park

What is wrong with this edit about Annabel Park.

To begin with, it asserts that she is an activist for the Democratic Party, rather than for individual politicians or issues. I see the mention of "ties", but no indication that she is an official activist for the party. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you are okay if I put that she was a volunteer for a Democratic politician.Hammerstown3 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

She has been a volunteer for multiple politicians, and a few different political causes as well. Her name, as one of the co-founders, is linked to her Wikipedia article for more information on those -- but this article isn't about her or other individuals. Her activity with those politicians and causes predates, and isn't related to, the organization discussed in this Wikipedia article. What purpose do you feel that addition would serve in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't on her and, to be sure, nothing in the edits comes close to coatracking, but the fact that she was a volunteer for a Democratic politician is important in providing context for the political orientation of the movement. (And in any case, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffee_Party_USA&diff=532079339&oldid=529397829 it was already pointed out before my edits that Annabel Park was a political activist, so I don't see what is so controversial about my edits clarifying the kind of political activism she espouses.)Hammerstown3 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"providing context for the political orientation of the movement" - please provide the reliable sources that convey that Park's past activities provide the context for the political orientation of the movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources have already been provided so if you are unable or unwilling to read it, then I can't help you there. Hammerstown3 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been no cited reliable source raised in this discussion that makes that argument. If you do not wish to provide reliable sources, that is your perogative. Let me know if you'd like to revisit the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Similar to this line of suggested editing, an editor has repeatedly inserted "a former Obama campaign volunteer" after Annabel Park in the body of text, presumably to make sure Park is partisan labelled accordingly (is there some other reason for this edit)? I oppose this change and have reverted it, but am posting here for the interested editor to take up making an argument for its inclusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• An editor has reintroduced the text, "a former volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign", with this edit claiming it is somehow relevant to the Coffee Party, without explaining that relevance (and it is odd, considering Park is no longer associated with the Coffee Party, if I remember correctly). I've removed the text pending the establishment of relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it. The founder was clearly a supporter of Obama. It is perfectly relevant in an article about a political group. The odd part is you feel the need to insert that someone else is Republican based on his claim in an article which is less relevant than Park's affilations. Looking thru the edits and your constant reversions of anyone else's additions, it looks like you feel you own this article. Fdr2001 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance. Simply repeating "it is relevant", without explaining why, doesn't advance the conversation. Two-thirds of the country "supported Obama", so that doesn't seem to be a particularly significant bit of information. The sockpuppet editor above tried to introduce similar wording, with the intent that it would mislead readers about "the political orientation of the movement". What is the reasoning behind your introduction of that wording? As for the spokesperson for Coffee Party mentioning that he is Republican, in a conversation about whether Republicans (Tea Partiers) are allowed in the Coffee Party - it is directly relevant by example in that it supports his answer. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your edit summary says (perfectly relevant, but since you disagree - remove both). You didn't remove a "Republican" party label from Park. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Political Positions 1

What is wrong with this edit about describing the political positions of Coffee Party USA.

Notice the sentence where you quote "tend to back...", that doesn't describe the "political positions" of the organization, instead of activists. Have you reviewed their actual political positions? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you took out the other parts of the edit, such as, "Articles in the CBSNews and The Christian Science Monitor have described Coffee Party USA as, "representing citizens who believe in government solutions"" or, "The organization's mission states that it is based on the underlying principle that the government is "not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans." Its slogan is "Wake Up and Stand Up". Its stated goals include getting cooperation in government and removing corporate influence from politics."?

So if I modified the edit so it instead wrote, "an article in the Christian Science monitor described Coffee Party USA activists as tending to support Barack Obama," you would be fine this?Hammerstown3 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of that information is already present in the article, so again I'd like to ask you what specific information you are hoping to convey to the reader. You are referring to an article written about a group that hadn't existed 45 days prior to the article, so the present-tense of your proposed text isn't supported. In addition, the text doesn't really convey anything specific to our reader. What specific positions does the organization support? The source article you cite says, "While asserting to be independent, coffee party activists tend to back President Obama and want “obstructionists” in Congress and the media to get out of his way", -- which describes more than half of the American voting public at the time. Looking at the specific "back President Obama" wording you've selected from that, along with "Democratic Party" references from your other proposed edits, I'm left wondering exactly what it is you are trying to convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The section is just about the political positions of the organization, so the scope of the explanation of the positions (i.e. whether it is general or specific) is irrelevant. The edits (including one from the organization itself) are supposed to show the organization's political position on the role of government in that section as that is where it is most appropriate to put the content, and not randomly put in the lead section.

No significant disagreement so far. The content in the lead isn't "randomly put in". It is primarily summary information that may be covered in more detail in the body of the article, or it may be overview information specific to the article topic. Sourced relevant content can be added to the 'positions' section; so are you saying that we should expand content on the group's position on the role of government? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is randomly put in the lead, the paragraph isn't summary information as it describes (verbatim) the fundamental beliefs of the movement/organization. I would also add that for a statement of such importance concerning a fundamental political position the movement takes, it is strange how the paragraph isn't even mentioned under the 'political positions' section. Hammerstown3 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Properly sourced significant "political positions" should be added to that section. What would you propose? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't answer my question, so I'll rephrase it to hopefully get a response from you: what is wrong with an edit that writes, "an article in the Christian Science monitor described Coffee Party USA activists as tending to support Barack Obama,"?Hammerstown3 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to an article written about a group that hadn't existed 45 days prior to the article, so the present-tense of your proposed text isn't supported. In addition, the text doesn't really convey anything specific to our reader. What specific positions does the organization support? The source article you cite says, "While asserting to be independent, coffee party activists tend to back President Obama and want “obstructionists” in Congress and the media to get out of his way", -- which describes more than half of the American voting public at the time. That isn't a political position. Looking at the specific "back President Obama" wording you've selected from that, along with "Democratic Party" references from your other proposed edits, I'm left wondering exactly what it is you are trying to convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about, the article writes that, "coffee party movement held its political kickoff Saturday at 370" so what group you are speaking of is beyond me. Also, the presidential voting preference of coffee party activists is different from the presidential voting preference of the American voting public , so why you keep alluding to the voting preference of the American voting public is anybody's guess, except to make the (quite frankly, ridiculous) argument that voting for a political party represented by a presidential candidate is not a political positions, in which case it is then an illogical argument as the act of supporting a party with ideas about the mode of social organization over another party with opposite ideas about the mode of social organization makes it a position that is political. Keep in mind also that the article describes Coffee Party USA as a movement (and not just an organization) so it is difficult to see how mentioning the political positions of the movement's supporters would be inappropriate or irrelevant to the 'political positions' section. Hammerstown3 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about any other groups. I also have not referred to "presidential voting preferences". Hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings. What political positions of the organization are you proposing to add to the "political positions" section? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Events in history section

What is wrong with this edit putting the events section into the history section.

What is your reasoning behind wanting the events in the History section? They do not appear to be distinctly historical events. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Because all the events are historic in the movement's history as the events were either the events 'firsts of its kind' or covered by a major media outlet. They are also historical events by virtue of the fact that the events have already happened, so your comment that they aren't "distinctly historical events" is confusing. Hammerstown3 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, every word in the article should be under the 'History' heading. I'm just trying to understand how, exactly, is it an improvement? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Because with my logic not every word would be under the 'history' heading; it doesn't make sense to put political positions or receptions under history because neither are relevant to the history of Coffee Party USA; events on the other hand do for reasons I noted above. Hammerstown3 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense to list events as they happen under History, when a separate section specifically detailing those events would be clearer for the reader. So how, exactly, is it an improvement? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But why do you need a separate section for the events section when it is demonstrably part of the history section of the article? In fact to put it as separate section would make it more confusing to the reader as the separation of the sections implies that they are unrelated when aren't. Why can't you just put the events section within the history section? Hammerstown3 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it makes perfect sense to list significant events (an open ended list, mind you) in the events section, as opposed to meshing it in with the actual history and origins of the organization. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No my edit was about putting the events section into the history section generally, not the sub-section entitled, "Origins and development" in the history section. Hammerstown3 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. And my question was: how is that an improvement?

Political Positions 2

What is wrong with this edit about describing the political positions of Coffee Party USA.

That information is already in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But why does it have to be in blockquote? What is so important about that statement that it deserves to be in blockquote?Hammerstown3 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't in blockquotes because it "is so important." Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's not blockquoted? Then why is that quote standing formatted in such a unique way within the section? Hammerstown3 (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it isn't blockquoted. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The blockquote part is irrelevant. Why is that quote standing formatted in such a unique way within the section?Hammerstown3 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To differentiate quoted text from article text. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

What is wrong with this edit about the lead of the article. Hammerstown3 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, it deletes sourced information without explanation. What is it that you wish to convey to the reader with this edit to the lead? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why the sources were removed (later reinstated in other sections of the article to support the appropriate statement(s) that was actually written in the article) is that not all of them (few actually) write that the Coffee Party USA is a diverse organization; to be sure, they report Coffee Party USA spokespeople that they a diverse organization, but the writers of the articles themselves don't necessarily describe it the organization as such. Also, what is it about the last part about other sources describing Coffee Part USA as "liberal" that you don't like? Hammerstown3 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourced information, not sources. As for "the last part", what other sources are you referring to, and more specifically, what text from those articles? (A word search on the first source, for instance, comes up empty on the word "liberal".) I don't see the reliable sources making that assertion. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So when you write, "Sourced information, not sources" you are seriously suggesting that information in the six sources cited support the statement (or something to that effect) that Coffee Party USA is a, "it has since grown into an increasingly diverse organization with members from across the political spectrum." Correct?

Incorrect. I said, "it deletes sourced information without explanation". As for the text you just quoted, yes, that is supported by a citation. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Overturned. Read my question again: so you suggesting that all six sources support the statement (or something to that effect) that the organization is an "increasingly diverse organization with members from across the political spectrum." Correct? Hammerstown3 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What source are you using? (If you are referring to the NY Daily source, I was in the process of removing citation to that source until your edit conflict as I am aware that that source contains to mention of describing Coffee party USA as liberal in its political orientation) And what about the other ones that do mention Coffee Party USA as liberal, such as the Telegraph or the AJC one?Hammerstown3 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Which specific text in the Telegraph and AJC, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The caption of the article in the Telegraph which reads, "The Coffee Party, a latte-sipping, liberal reaction to the populist conservative Tea Party movement, has emerged on the political scene, attracting hundreds of thousands of online followers." [1]

The article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which reads, "Stacey Hopkins is organizing one of them at Manuel's Tavern in Atlanta, where she's expecting about 80 people, including members of a left-leaning group she belongs to called the Coffee Party.." [2]Hammerstown3 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The first one is already in the article. The second one doesn't add anything substantially different, so would be redundant. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

What is wrong with this edit adding sourced criticism of Coffee Party USA.Hammerstown3 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We tend to avoid "Criticism" sections in Wikipedia articles; valid and notable criticisms should instead be conveyed in the relevant sections. What valid criticisms do you feel should be conveyed to the reader, and with which reliably sourced reporting? (Looking at the 2 you proposed - synth from a Breitbart blog and snark from a nobody - I suspect you will be hard pressed to find suitable information along those lines.) Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't WP:BLP so there's more latitude when it comes to criticism sections (and especially with regards to political movements/organizations). The edits make it clear what the criticisms are, and I didn't do an improper synthesis of anything my edit was a verbatim writing of a statement of fact that was reported in a reliable source. Hammerstown3 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about BLPs. I said we tend to avoid "Criticism" sections in Wikipedia articles; valid and notable criticisms should instead be conveyed in the relevant sections. Perhaps the explanation at WP:CRITS would be helpful. Please explain what valid criticisms you feel should be conveyed to the reader, as it is not clear from your edits. They just show an unsupported astroturfing claim and a snarky comment with no meaning. Perhaps you could provide some contemporary, reliably sourced reporting on whatever significant criticisms you are trying to convey? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This Vanity Article is Dated and Should Be Deleted

The "Coffee Party USA" is the vanity organization controlled by Anabell Parks. It's not a "movement," and if it ever was, it's been dead for three years. The sourcing for this article is all from 2010 and most of it is just quotes from the group's leaders or websites. Absurdly, there's even a section attempting to establish the group's popularity through by pointing to its Facebook "likes" over a brief period in 2010. I'll be deleting this article shortly absent some reasoned argument for its preservation, including links to recent reliable sources establishing that the group participates in the national dialogue as does the Tea Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.18 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to nominate this article for deletion, you can read about the process at WP:AFD and follow the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO to start the process. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you dispute a single word I've written, feel free to state it. There's no prohibition against deleting a clearly farcical article, which this clearly is. I suspect it's some sort of parody. No need to waste time with a cumbersome process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.27 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Regular editors can not delete an article; only admins can do so, and they will not delete a page unless it goes through the deletion process. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't dispute a word I've said, I'll start deleting the dated, irrelevant and improperly sourced material in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.49 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coffee Party USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303095127/http://www.coffeepartyusa.com//content//about-us to http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/about-us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928203559/http://www.wfpl.org/2010/09/22/first-ever-coffee-party-convention-is-in-louisville-this-weekend/ to http://www.wfpl.org/2010/09/22/first-ever-coffee-party-convention-is-in-louisville-this-weekend/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Update 2018

A lot of the conversation here on the talk page is dated. And the article itself is a bit dated.

Much of the discussion above suggests Annabel Park runs the organization. I can't speak for a few years ago, but in 2018 she is not involved in the organization.

The current president is Charlotte Vaughan Coyle. The article states that the prez is Debilyn Mollneaux. That was true a few years ago, but not now. http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/leadership

The Coffee Party USA leadership strives to be non-partisan and tries to bring people together of all political stripes in respectful open discussion.

I'm not an experienced editor and don't know all the Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines, so I don't feel equipped to edit that actual page. Guidance from a Wiki-mentor would be appreciated. Jasonnet (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CPUSA logo 2021.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)