Talk:Annabel Park

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

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


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


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


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


 * Both of you, please sign your comments (just append 4 tildes to the end like this: ~ ).
 * I will be removing the YouTube citation again. It does not meet the sourcing requirements required by WP:BLP (in addition, it doesn't even support the content cited to it). I will also be moving the content about her NYT job outside of her political activism section, because (as others have pointed out to you) it does not belong there. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * Found it! It was on the Coffee Party website.  Click on "About Us" and you'll see it contains this statement: "We are a non-partisan, fact-based, solutions-oriented network..." etc.  Per your concerns, it's now added as an additional reference cite at the end of the sentence. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but that statement is published from a self-published source and needs to be qualified as such.Galafax (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


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




 * Since the website in question isn't a self-published source by Annabel Park, making claims about herself, but rather the website of the Coffee Party organization, making a statement about the Coffee Party in a self-identifying manner, it isn't a self-published source under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Of course, it's still a "primary source" (as opposed to a secondary source), but that is permissible and isn't a problem the way it's been used here either. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section most relevant here is WP:ABOUTSELF seeing as how the claim about Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" was found on a website published by the Coffee Party. According to that section, it lists five conditions that self-published sources must meet if it is to be used as a source for itself. In the context of the Coffee Party house sentence, it violates first one, namely that the description of Coffee Party as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" is self-serving (we can debate whether that's true or not later) And until we settle the debate about whether Coffee Party's description of itself as "fact-based" and "non-partisan" is or is not self-serving, the jury's still out as to whether or not the use of this source is permissible. Galafax (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a much simpler solution here, as it appears you are focusing on whether or not the Coffee party truly is "fact-based" and "non-partisan"; we can simply add text in the article to indicate that they are "self-described as". A self-published tag is not necessary in that context. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I went to look at the article just now to make that change, I see you've already done that! However, you left the "self published" tag in, and also deleted the portion about the Coffee Party being an alternative to the Tea Party, something which was commented on in reliable secondary sources.  I will make those adjustments now, and add a relevant source citation. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the self-published source point and the redundancy of putting the tag. As for the alternative to the Tea Party comment, that's an opinion about the Coffee Party USA and should go under the relevant section under the Coffee Party USA article.Galafax (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that editors on Coffee Party are opposing your labeling of the Coffee Party as "progressive". You should probably resolve the issue there before trying to insert the label here.  Also, please don't strip out the source citations.  This article previously said that the Coffee Party considered itself to be an alternative to the Tea Party, it just didn't have a cite; now it does, from a reliable secondary source.  If you disagree, let's discuss it rather than stripping out the material.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, under the reception's section of Coffee Party USA, sources have already identified the grassroots political movement as left-leaning/on the political left; what I'm trying to do is give that political label about Coffee Party more prominence in the context of the article. As for stripping out material (in this case, material that was WP:UNDUE) the burden of evidence is on you to show why the material should be restored WP:BURDEN.Galafax (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably resolve any prominent "progressive" label issue over at CP USA, where more editors are currently discussing it, then import the results back here (whatever they may be) to the Park BLP. Doesn't that make more sense?  With regard to stripping out the CP's perception of itself as being an alternative to the TP, I'm not sure why that would be WP:UNDUE.  Can you explain some reasons why you feel it is undue to include that?  Also, WP:BURDEN is part of the policy on verifiability and speaks to situations where no sourcing has been provided, in which case the burden is on the editor who wants to include it.  However, reliable sourcing isn't the problem here, so perhaps you could better explain your concern regarding WP:BURDEN as well.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:BURDEN applies to sources where the reliability of the sources is not in question (in this case, it is because the WP:ABOUTSELF source violates the first condition, which is that the self-published source promotes the subject in question in an undue manner). Anyway, I think a better solution would be to just remove any description of Coffee Party and just leave it at Annabel Park founded Coffee Party USA.Galafax (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The better solution would be to resolve the identity question about the organization first, on that article's talk page, and then update this page accordingly once that is resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so stop adding in material that's in dispute at the moment.Galafax (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Galafax, you've made it clear that you oppose this by removing and reverting it from the article along with the citations three times in the past 7 hours, here, here, and here. Don't you think that if multiple editors are undoing your reverts, it would be more appropriate work it out here on the Talk Page and discuss it instead of continuing to revert? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason why I've so many three reverts is because you and Xenophrenic happen to be tag-team editing this article which is unsurprising given your rapport with that user. As for the changes you suggest, I'm all for your suggestion about adding primary and secondary sources and how they don't run afoul of any Wikipedia policies, which is why I find it curious as to why you'd object to the "progressive" label/description for Coffee Party USA cited to a reliable secondary source. (I'll add a new label describing Coffee Party USA that's cited to a reliable secondary source) As for the alternative section, this article isn't a coatrack for opinions and competing opinions about Coffee Party and so shouldn't have a place here. Galafax (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have good rapport with Xenophrenic, but he and I do not "coordinate [our] actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." Frankly, accusing others of tag-team editing to justify why you have to make so many reverts is a losing argument.  It's better to focus on the talk page and make well reasoned policy based arguments on the material in question; put another way, try to stay focused on the edits rather than the editors.  If your argument is the best argument, it will come out on top when other editors stop by and review them.  I'm also glad to see that you've accepted the validity of the primary and secondary sources used to substantiate the Coffee Party's self-identification.  In so far as labeling the Coffee Party as liberal, however, that's an issue which is currently disputed and should be worked out on the Coffee Party USA article first instead, so I'm going to respectfully revert that and ask that you stop trying to add the political labels "liberal" or "progressive" until we work out some consensus.  I see you've posted about that on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, so hopefully more editors will join in on the subject and widen everyone's perspectives.  Sound good?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the previous discussion it appears that the self published self serving comments are acceptable, where the secondary descriptor (liberal) is not. This appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV in that only the positve aspects are allowed and anything apparently negative is not allowed.  Arzel (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of sources that describe the Coffee Party as left wing, anti-conservative, liberal, or progressive: "They were angry. They hated the Tea Party, and the Republican Party. They wanted to get even." in Newsweek from April 2010, "The movement, co-founded by filmmaker named Annabel Park, was initially seen as a progressive alternative to the Tea Party." on Politico from March 2011, "The earliest liberal alternative, the so-called Coffee Party, was a flop." from the Daily Caller today. I think only using their own description, and not using what secondary reliable sources say is unbalanced. —Torchiest talkedits 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a source already in the article is titled "Meet the Coffee Party, a Kinder, Gentler, More Liberal Tea Party". Pretty straightforward. —Torchiest talkedits 20:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Torchiest. You might want to cross-post your comment here over to the talk page for Coffee Party USA.  There is already a thread over there on this subject, titled Coffee Party as a "progressive" grassroots political movement".  Whether it's appropriate or not that the Coffee Party should be labeled liberal and/or progressive should be worked out there first, rather than here, as that is the main Coffee Party article and this article is just a BLP.  Wouldn't you agree? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

01 February 2011 edits.
These are the edits in question...


 * '''(cur | prev) 11:02, 1 February 2012‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (5,555 bytes) (returned 121 source; rem scare quotes) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:01, 1 February 2012‎ 108.65.73.164 (talk)‎ (5,468 bytes) (→Political activism: Added quotes to clarify that this is how they perceive themselves, and to ensure neutral POV in article.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 08:55, 1 February 2012‎ 108.65.73.164 (talk)‎ (5,462 bytes) (→Political activism: Link was to an unrelated subject. (Korean comfort women during WWII)) (undo) (Tag: references'''

I took out the reference. It was about the 121 Coalition. I referred to it as "Korean comfort women during WWII" as an off the top of my head recollection. In retrospect, it should not have been taken out. However, I do believe it should be moved to a slightly different location in the article. It is attached to a sentence that discribes Annabel Park and her work with the Coffee Party. I believe it should be moved the a sentence above this, which references Annable Park's work with the 121 Coalition. So yeah, I was wrong to have taken out the link, and I think it is proper to have it in the article. However, the current location is not quite right.

I put quotes arround some words that were used to describe the Coffee Party. Xenophrenic removed them and referred to them as scare quotes. I disagree with that characterization.

If you go to the wiki article about the [| Coffee Party], you will see the following...


 * The Coffee Party USA is an American political movement that was initially formed in January, 2010, as an alternative to the Tea Party movement, and has since grown into an increasingly diverse organization.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

I think this is a very good, wiki NPOV. The next line about the Coffee Party is as follows...


 * The Coffee Party USA officially identifies itself as a 501(c)(4) social benefit organization. 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."[7] Its stated goals include getting cooperation in government and removing corporate influence from politics.

This too, is a very good wiki NPOV. When both of these are combined, you have a very nice bit of information. First, you get a clear definition of what the Coffee Party is. Then you get clear text of how the Coffee Party refers to itself and mission. And the two go together very well.

If a fair minded Tea Party person reads the above about the Coffee Party, his is going to think, "yeah, that's a fair, neutral description of the party that was formed in opposition to mine." He probably wouldn't agree with their goals, but the wiki article wouldn't get him riled up.

Now this is what we have in Annabel Park's article right now...


 * She is a founder and defacto-coordinator of Coffee Party USA, an organization which describes itself as a fact-based, non-partisan and solutions-based network that considers itself to be a "more thoughtful and reasoned alternative to the Tea Party."

A Tea Party person who reads that is going to have some problems with it. He is going to see that as a subtle way of denigrating his views and/or party. He is going to say "wait, are you saying that the Tea Party is not fact based, that it is partisan, and doesn't want solutions?" This is going to rub him the wrong way, and not be seen as a neutral POV.

So. I don't want scare quotes in the Annabel Park article. But as it is, I think it needs some work. The parts I referred to can be perceived as biased. I think that the tone in the Coffee Party article is excellent, and if that was transferred over to the Annabel Park article, it would fit very well and improve the article.

Xenophrenic referred to my edit as "scare quotes." If he thinks they are scare quotes, then I don't want them. I didn't intend for them to be scare quotes, but if they are perceived that way, they should go. But I also think the article as it is, needs the changes I indicated earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.73.164 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, 108.65.73.164, and thank you for clearly expressing your concerns. Regarding the Korean Times source, you are correct that it could be placed in a better location.  It should follow the previous sentence about the 121 coalition.  The two paragraphs in that section were at one time a single paragraph, with all of the sources cited at the end; it appears the sources were never properly split as the content was expanded.  I have now moved that source to a more appropriate location.  To your next point...


 * If a fair minded Tea Party person reads the above about the Coffee Party, his is going to think, "yeah, that's a fair, neutral description of the party that was formed in opposition to mine."


 * If that is what a reader would think, then he has misread - or the article has misconveyed. As noted in the Wikipedia article about it, the Coffee Party was formed as an alternative, not "formed in opposition" to the Tea Party.  In fact, many CPers are also TPers, and they share some of the same political goals.  The biggest contention between the groups, according to the sources, is in their methods.  One tends to be given to large vocal groups, rallies and rhetoric, costumes and spectacle, while the other tends toward solutions-driven discussion, small and quiet venues, and emphasis on productive cooperation instead of opposition and abolishment.


 * A Tea Party person who reads that is going to have some problems with it. He is going to see that as a subtle way of denigrating his views and/or party. He is going to say "wait, are you saying that the Tea Party is not fact based, that it is partisan, and doesn't want solutions?" This is going to rub him the wrong way, and not be seen as a neutral POV.


 * I think you are confusing Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy with the Coffee Party USA having a neutral point of view. In addition, "fact-based, non-partisan and solutions-based" are descriptions of itself, and do not reference the Tea Party positively or negatively. The part a TPer might take issue with is the "more thoughtful and reasoned alternative to the Tea Party" comparison, but the Coffee Party has in no way indicated it is neutral in that regard.  A reader may question the accuracy of the comparison made by the Coffee Party, but the Wikipedia article is accurate and neutral when it conveys that the comparison was indeed made. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a third pary moderator
I am respectfully requesting a third party moderator to help mediate between myself and Xenophrenic. I added some edits to this article. He undid them 24 hours later.

I now just undid them. So... rather than having us undo each other again, I request a third party moderator.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.73.164 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic just undid my undoing of his undoing of my edits. No explanation was given. I am requesting a third pary moderator to help mediate this. Thank you.


 * The primary edit of yours that I undid was the insertion of a quotation without an edit summary explanation. It was also mislabeled by you as, "a facebook update about the Coffee Party beginnings", when the Coffee Party didn't yet exist.  You also removed that Park was a Strategy Analyst (again, without explanation).  In addition, you moved a sentence citation from the end of the sentence to the middle, weird ... and also without explanation.


 * Your bold edit has been reverted per WP:BRD. You should discuss your edits, rather than continue to try to edit war them into the article.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have reverted several times my edit. The original single sentence has *four* footnotes.  Since someone wanted a sentence to have four footnotes, I edited it so that each relevant footnote clearly indicates what part of the sentence it is related to.  The fourth and unnecessary footnote was then removed.


 * Also, look at the list of footnotes in your version of the article. There are two redundant footnotes, i.e., two separate footnotes that go to the same article.  Those footnotes have been consolidated into one footnote now.


 * The quote from Ms. Park is relevant. It was clearly explained to be about her motivations for creating the Coffee Party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.73.164 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Annabel Park worked briefly for the New York Times as a strategy analyst over ten years ago. (Link)
 * As for the unnecessary quote, it doesn't explain her motivations for the creation of the Coffee Party USA. That explanation is given in the article itself, not the quote.  You should read that explanation, and then convey that explanation in your own words in the article, if you feel it is of appropriate due weight. Your unexplained deletions of sourced content (she really is a Spokesperson for the group; she really is on the Advisory Board for that org, etc.) is in appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I had three edits. One adding paragraphs for clairity. One adding a quote of Ms. Parks for clairification of her views. And one cleaning/clairifying a sentence with four footnotes. You undid all three with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.104.181 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

AzureCitizen observations
You are right, that was a redundant sentence. I missed it while focusing too closely on footnotes and other things. So I removed the redundant sentence as per your suggestion. That was a good catch of yours. Thanks. Now we have a reasonably short sentence with three foot notes. I'll check later to see if any of those footnotes are redundant or not applicable. Again, good catch on your part. --108.81.104.181


 * Hello, 108.81.104.181. I think you're trying to help here, but once again you've reverted double-up error sentences right back into the article.  Here are the two sentences that you keep "doubling up":


 * 1) "Park is now a spokesperson for Coffee Party USA, and is on their Advisory Board."
 * 2) "She was a volunteer for Jim Webb's 2006 US Senate campaign and for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign."
 * You have done it three times now with your edits here: 1, 2, and 3.  On your latest attempt, you fixed one of the mistakes but not the other.  I'm going to fix this by simply returning to the version before the mistakes were introduced, and ask you try one more time if there is something specific in there you are trying to edit (it still isn't clear to me).  On a separate issue, I note that Xenophrenic has posted a link just above that demonstrates that Annabel Park worked briefly for the New York Times as a Strategy Analyst (see above - here is the link he provided:  Link)  So I think it's possible you may have missed that as well.  If not, please address it here on the Talk page too as I'm unable to figure out why you keep deleting that from the article.  Through open discussion rather than repeated reverts, we can get this straightened out.  :)  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello AC,


 * OK, no problem. I'll address just one issue at a time, and I'll tackle the second one first.


 * Below is a cut and paste of her career history from the current article.


 * “Park has worked in her family owned truck diner, worked as a nanny in New York and briefly worked in strategic planning at the New York Times as a Strategy Analyst. She has also worked as playwright, theater director, and documentary film maker. [3][4]”


 * I have two issues with the sentence about her work at the New York Times. The first is substantive.  The second is stylistic.


 * First, the term “Strategy Analyst” appears nowhere in the provided footnotes. Footnote #3 mentions her working in “strategic planning at the New York Times” but that’s it.


 * Second, why is “Strategy Analyst” capitalized?  People work as “lawyers”, “accountants”, “truck drivers”, etc.  But these are not routinely capitalized.  So this strikes me as stylistically incorrect.


 * Also, even if we un-capitalize the phrase, the sentence is still awkward. Yes, it may be completely true, but it’s awkward.  For example, you wouldn’t say, “she did open heart surgery as a surgeon.”  The term “surgery” implies the second term of “surgeon”.  And you wouldn’t say, “She did oil painting in New York as an artist.”  Again, the first term “oil painting” implies the second term “artist.”




 * Footnote 3: When Park was 9, her family emigrated from Seoul to Houston. She studied philosophy at Boston University and political theory at Oxford, was a nanny in New York until she got a job in strategic planning at the New York Times, moved to L.A. to pursue filmmaking and, in 2006, came to D.C. to work on Jim Webb's Senate campaign, which led to a documentary project on the immigration debates in Prince William.


 * Footnote 4: She was born in Seoul, South Korea and immigrated to Houston, TX when she was nine years old with her family. She grew up working at a truck diner owned by her parents.  --108.81.104.181


 * Thank you for spelling out your concerns here on the Talk page! You've raised two valid concerns, the first substantive and the second stylistic.
 * With regard to the substantive, you're right, the "Strategy Analyst" information doesn't appear in the cited footnotes. I assume you've checked out the link that Xenophrenic provided above that contains the following information:  "'Q: Does Annabel Park work for the New York Times?  A: Annabel Park worked briefly for the New York Times as a strategy analyst over ten years ago. She was not in the news department."  So perhaps what you're trying to get at here is that you'd like to see that reference note (this one) added as an additional footnote citation for that?
 * With regard to the stylistic, I totally agree we should be lower-casing "Strategy Analyst" and I'm not sure why it was upper-cased to begin with. With regard to the awkwardness of the phrasing and your key example (e.g., "she did oil painting in New York as an artist"), I think we're missing a key difference there.  While everyone who does oil painting must obviously be an artist, not everyone who works in open heart surgery does so as a surgeon (there are also nurses, anesthesiologists, support staff, etc).  Similarly, not everyone who works in strategic planning is a strategy analyst.  So it's probably better to retain the current phrasing as it's more accurate.
 * So, I'm thinking we should immediately lower-case "Strategy Analyst" and add the aforementioned reference citation to solve the problems. Your thoughts? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the above discussion, and pending any objection, I've gone ahead and added the above-mentioned citation and de-capitalized the "strategy analyst" title. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)