Talk:Coffee Party USA/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Coffee Party Political Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign to Save America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Update; Accurate Reference to Politico Articles

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

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

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

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

Problem with Political Positions

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

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

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

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

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

From the cited source:

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

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

Coffee Party as a "progressive" grassroots political movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apology accepted. As for your two sources, neither explain how the Coffee Party is "progressive". Xenophrenic (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies where? Sorry, couldn't find the part where I would ever do I mean did that. But don't worry about the imaginary apologies the jokes on you as you couldn't even make the effort to show up on the dispute resolution page. As for the sources, I'm sure if you had any I mean better comprehension skills, you'd be able to see how the sources describe the Coffee Party as progressive.Galafax (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Second apology accepted. "The part where I would ever do I mean?" I'll respond below to the comments of yours that I can successfully decipher. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Again, if you had any comprehension skills, you'd be able to figure out what I saying. But unfortunately you don't, which is why you're still trying to decipher what I'm saying. Galafax (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Started by an Obama supporter. It is undoubtably a progressive organization. However, it was a failed experiment without any recent news at all. This article should probably be deleted. Arzel (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Copying this (partially) from the Annabel Park talk page, and with more additions: 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. Oh, and a source already in the Park article is titled "Meet the Coffee Party, a Kinder, Gentler, More Liberal Tea Party". Pretty straightforward. Here's another one from The Guardian March 2010: "As the Tea Party movement continues apace in the US (and elsewhere), disappointed liberals have joined forces to start up their own Coffee Party. Which do you think is best?". From the results of a straw poll: "In sum, we're starting to see the ideological outlines of "Coffee Party" membership, and at least after the poll on health care reform, it's looking highly progressive." From the Washington Examiner in March 2011: "A Texas group called itself "Coffee Party Progressives" and founder Annabel Park didn't want her Coffee Party--being a non-ideological liberal group--to be associated with a liberal group. Nothing has come of the dispute, but it does highlight the irrelevance of some liberal grassroots groups that hide behind "non-partisan" labels and end up being non-influential." There are plenty more. Note also that these sources span the last year and a half. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are working from the same sources everyone else is, Torchiest, so I am left wondering exactly what point you are making. The article already conveys that some have referred to the organization as liberal, leftist, pro-Obama, etc. (See the Reception section.) Look again at the first quote from the first source you mention; that very quote is also already in the article. Your second quote, from the second source that merely cites your first source, refers to how the organization was "initially seen", and the resultant spin-off group and legal threats that ensued when that perception was revealed as inaccurate. Smith subsequently, and more accurately, refers to the "progressive wing" of the Coffee Party in his follow-up stories. Looking at your third source - just 1 single sentence in the whole opinion piece about the Coffee Party, and you quoted it. It merely repeats the already discredited meme, and gives zero supporting information. Your fourth source, already in the article as you noted, refers to the Coffee Party as a "more liberal Tea Party" - hello - even the rest of the Republican Party is "more liberal" than the Tea Party, and that article goes on to describe Coffee Party participants as "a pretty diverse group with different party affiliations and political philosophies". Perhaps that was missed in the excitement of seeing the word "liberal" that one time in the whole article; in the headline, no less, where artistic license is always taken to grab the reader's attention. Pretty straightforward, you said, and I fully agree. The fifth source you quoted - oh, wait, you quoted the whole 2-sentence "article", a poll question actually, posted just 30 days after the formation of the groups Facebook page? Not even touching that one; moving on. The sixth source, an individual's personal blog - I see we're scraping the bottom of the barrel here - and he's a progressive that joined the Coffee Party and optimistically opined about the results of a single polling question 45 days into the formation of the group. Your final source is an opinion piece, from a conservative commentator (a 20 year old) in an opinion section; full of more opinion than fact.

You said "there are plenty more" sources. I have no doubt there are many sources that mis-label the Coffee Party in passing, with absolutely no substantiation, just like those listed above. However, if we intent to convey to our readers that the organization is one thing or another, we'll need actual reliable sources making that case. Especially when it conflicts with what is already known, and expressed by the group itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)Galafax (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks redacted. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

About your request for a Third Opinion: I've removed your request for a Third Opinion because the guidelines of the 3O project limit it to civil disputes in which only two editors are involved and a 3O is needed to get them "unstuck." There are already 5 or 6 editors involved here, so some other form of dispute resolution should be used. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we have a "movement" started by two volunteer artists from the Obama campaign but somehow we are supposed to accept it as "Non-Partisan" and grassroots?

The thing is evident by what it is. Not Non-Partisan, for example, on what substantive policy issues does it disagree with the Democrat Party platform? Not Grassroots, indeed, possibly not worthy of a Wikipedia entry except possibly as a footnote. What have they done for a year? Very likely occupying someplace screaming for progressive action You know what it is by its fruits, all of its positions are progressive, and all endorsed as political positions of the Democrat party. Indeed, it seems silly to argue against what it's official stated positions.::: 3 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.255 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I don't know to what extent the term "progressive" applies to the Coffee Party, but to say "progressive" is an adjective not a political position is just silly. It's clearly both. That is, it is an adjective describing a political position. "Liberal," "conservative," "socialist," etc. are all adjectives. Are they not also political positions? "Progressive" is a legitimate term with a unique, specific meaning, as the wiki article on progressivism attests. If the coffee party is not progressive then don't label it as such, but arguing that the term "progressive" is loaded and illegitimate in general is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk • contribs)

...which must be why I have never argued that "progressive is loaded and illegitimate in general". Perhaps you have me confused with another editor? Here is what I actually said:

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

Nothing in your comment above shows any of what I said to be "silly" or "wrong". "Progressive" isn't a political position, in the context we were discussing above, nor is "Liberal". "Corporate money shouldn't be allowed in elections" is a political position, as is "the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage." Did you have improvements to the article to suggest? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I was referring to the editor who said "It's nice that you consider the Coffee Party as progressive, but we generally avoid using such peacock terms because they sound too much like advertizing and promotion." That comment appears to be signed by you, and certainly appears to suggest that the term "progressive" should be avoided in general because it is a "peacock term" -- in other words inherently loaded. I do accept your hairsplitting between a political ideology such as progressivism and a specific political position such as banning corporate campaign contributions, though I don't see how that distinction should affect the argument in this case. "Progressive" may not technically be a "position," but it certainly is a legitimate classification of a position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is neither a position, nor a "classification of a position". It's an adjective: (favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are) -- No hairsplitting here, just two distinctly different things. Perhaps you should restate your "argument" in clearer terms? The case I was making to the other editor, before you joined the conversation, was that we don't interject the unsubstantiated "progressive" adjective into the description of the Coffee Party. Without substance, it serves as nothing more than a peacock term, or weasel word, if you prefer -- and is nonsensical as well, in light of the fact that the group is non-partisan and promotes political positions from across the political spectrum. I'll assume your answer to my question about article improvement (the purpose of this talk page, by the way) is 'no'. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So you do claim "progressive" is a peacock term, but you deny claiming it is a "loaded" term. Interesting. I still think your insistence that the term progressive does not describe political positions is odd. The position that the government should enact anti-discrimination legislation for example, is a progressive position. I'm not advocating for specific improvements in the article proper, rather I am advocating for some reflection about the way you go about changing it and about the way you argue for those changes in this talk section given a possible POV issue you have about the term "progressive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making your intentions clear. You should carry on your advocacy in an appropriate venue. Article talk pages are for article improvement discussions. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Coffee Party USA: political persuasion in lead?

Request for comment as to whether or not certain sources describing the political positions of Coffee Party as "liberal," "progressive," and "pro-government" can and should be included in the article.

• Not in the lead; brief mention in the "Political positions" section. I looked through the first six references and only one called them liberal or something to that effect. A few others mentioned that the members are more likely to have to voted for Obama, oppose the Tea Party, support government-based solutions, etc., but that material would fit better in an expanded "Political positions" section. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Best in "Political positions" - Agree with CWenger that the Political Positions section is the best location for all assessments of liberal/conservative/whatever. On the other hand, if there is strong agreement in the sources that the Coffee Party is one particular persuasion of politics, then that should appear in the lead. If the organization self-describes itself unambiguously as something, that self-description should be in the lead. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

External links

There has been some question as to whether or not this organization's Official Facebook Page and Official Website should both be listed under the External Links section of this article. The only objection to having both listed thus far presented is that WP:EL prohibits having more than one official site. I do not find that to be the case. WP:ELYES states that Official websites should be linked (both of these sites meet WP:EL's definition of "Official site"), and further states that Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) can be linked. Both external websites meet that criteria as well. Both links contain unique, relevant information for the reader that is too extensive to incorporate into the Wikipedia article. A quick review of other articles about groups and organizations show that it is standard Wikipedia practice to include multiple official website links when multiple, relevant sites meeting Wikipedia's requirements exist. Finally, these two links are the only External Links present, so it is in no way excessive. As such, I have reinstated the two links. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)