Talk:No Labels/Archive 1

Stating vs. Quoting
Wikipedia is meant to be like any other encyclopedia. We should simply state facts, not quote other periodicals. Bluetiger50 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)BlueTiger50

Citation
For the "citation needed" about the fact that No Labels is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, what sort of citation would be acceptable? It's something they say a lot on their site, but I take it that wouldn't be considered valid. I'd just like some ideas of what exactly I should try to find so I can remove the "citation needed" tag. Reinana kyuu 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Citation is unnecessary for this sort of thing in the lede. 204.65.34.171 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
The purpose of this page is to discuss the structure, layout, and content of the No Labels wikipedia page, not the validity of the movement. Bluetiger50 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)BlueTiger50

If the basic premise of the subject of the article is inherently flawed, and subject to criticism, how is that not discussing content? The organization claims a diverse ideological membership, yet I have not really seen a conservative involved. I mean come one, and the claimed goal, civility, but aiming the criticism only at the Right? Really? At best the Article reads like a promotion page for group, how about something besides fluff that looks as though it comes from the organization itself. 108.241.120.20 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jon Huntsman was a two term Governor of the most Republican (by registration) state in the Union, and is a national representative of the group. The co-founder Mark McKinnon has worked in campaigns of Charlie Wilson (senator), George Bush (gubernatorial and presidential), and John McCain (presidential primary). Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot determine whether these people are ideologically conservative based on our own viewpoints, but rather must express the most prevalent view or views. Based on those criteria it is proper to define both of those people (certainly the latter) as conservative and proper to claim that the group involves conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.36.215 (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall
This seems to be so uncritical (and with a liberal bias) that it must have been written by the RINO organization itself. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"RINO" is a silly point, but this article does read like a press release from the organization. It should be trimmed -- we don't need each annual statement -- and written from an encyclopedic perspective. Sajita (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Hill interview
Here is a good interview on The Hill with two principals of No Labels by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, who are the progressive and conservative co-hosts of The Hill's TV program.

They both argue that seeking consensus between the political parties is what brought Washington into the current paralysis, because (1) the Republicans aren't willing to compromise and (2) consensus, centrist, middle-of-the-road compromise solutions don't work. Ball gives the example of health care, where the Democrats under Obama offered a copy of Romneycare, but they couldn't get any Republican support.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylxxE0bai84
 * Krystal and Saagar challenge No Labels on civility politics
 * Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti
 * The Hill
 * Nov 14, 2019


 * Transcript 03:07 [The] No Labels ethos is around this idea of coming back together to this bipartisan civility.... has it occurred to you that that bipartisan consensus that brought us trade deals that shift our jobs overseas, that brought us stagnant wages, that brought us the destruction of unions, that brought us endless wars, that brought us selling our communities out to Big Pharma, ... creating the massive addiction crisis that we have, the worst that we've ever had in our nation, has it ever occurred to you that the reason that people are so angry and so frustrated with the political establishment and so at each other's throats is exactly because that bipartisan consensus has been such an utter disaster for the working class and the middle class?

This is a good quote because it summarizes in simple language what No Labels is trying to do, and also why the critics say it won't work.

(BTW, you can access the transcript or captions by clicking on the three dots next to the "SAVE" link on Youtube.)

--Nbauman (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Where's the criticism section?
See subject.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Written like an advert
It seems as though this article is likely to have been contributed to by people involved in the organisation, many news sources describe it as a corporate lobbying group and a dark money organisation


 * https://theintercept.com/2021/08/26/no-labels-billionaire-donors-josh-gottheimer/
 * https://inequality.org/research/no-labels-problem-solvers-wall-street/
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-no-labels-went-from-preaching-unity-to-practicing-the-dark-arts
 * https://spec.hamilton.edu/no-labels-clubs-conservative-funding-undermines-purported-bipartisan-efforts-3d40dd889f01
 * https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
Recent edits to this article have given it a bit of a negative tone. Incorporating criticism is fine, but language such as "controversial American political organization", "proclaimed mission", and "clandestine efforts" seem to be accusing No Labels of having a hidden agenda. Much of this has been using Ryan Grim's articles for The Intercept as a source, but they do not clearly establish that messaging given to donors contradicts what is being communicated to the public by No Labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailman5050 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bias
People have been replacing content in this article with their opinions. Please address this. 2601:85:4501:AB29:F000:4516:D1EB:41A0 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The article itself is promotional in nature. Because No Labels is a political organization, the promotional bias of the article is likely to attract malicious edits. Notably, User talk:24.34.100.8, has been posting edits that are plainly critical of and insulting to the organization. EveningStarNM (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article consists of far too many non-objective sources -including references by the organisation itself and also to low level sources such as blogs. Because the articles sources are questionable, it will attract editors wanting to clean it up and will remain unstable. The use of the organisation's website for descriptions of itself also suggests that some editors my have a conflict of interest. The entire article needs a re-write using reliable, third party sources.BronHiggs (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This article, in plain language, is an advertisement. 24.128.230.235 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
This article reads more like a political hit piece than an encyclopedia article. While I don't know much about this organization, some of the names affiliated with it, like former governor Larry Hogan, are centrist politicians whose views are far from extreme or unreasonable. A criticism section is fine, but there doesn't seem to be anything of real substance here. The billionaire bogeyman has been invoked -as if big sum donations automatically imply something corrupt. All DC think tanks and political NPs take in millions of dollars from individual donors, companies, labor unions and other special interests, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are involved in manipulation. And what is the purpose of writing that the organization "claims" to support centrist policies? Is there any evidence in reliable sources that this isn't true? Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you think have been summarized unfairly or inappropriately? Is there significant coverage in other reliable sources that you've found that aren't included in the article? Schazjmd   (talk)  22:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Achievements (and/or failures/controversies)
Draft table attempting to wrangle information on which bills the caucus has been credited with passing (or not), how, and what No Labels' impact has been (and if available, analysis of how the bill is working in practice)

Superb Owl (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Governing board
Does anyone have any ideas as to where to find out who has been, at least in paper, in charge of the organization (and any affiliated groups) since its founding? Superb Owl (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've found Board information from 2010 through 2020 through IRS 990 filings (looks like the IRS has a backlog of more recent filings), but any sources of information on the current board would be helpful. Superb Owl (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Giant table doesn't appear helpful, "quick bio" is inappropriately casual. Suggest removing table. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Would there be any merit in keeping the bios of board members without Wikipedia pages? Seems like they might be notable...
 * {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin:0em 1em 0em .5em"

!Board Member !Role !Since !Quick Bio
 * +Board of Directors (FY 2020)
 * Nancy Jacobson
 * President
 * 2010
 * A former Democratic Party fundraiser, she runs the organization as CEO.
 * Jerald S Howe Jr.
 * Treasurer
 * 2010
 * Corporate lawyer for a $10 billion defense contractor.
 * Margie Fox
 * Director
 * 2010
 * 'Partner and consigliere' at a design and branding studio. A previous firm run by her and her husband, Maloney & Fox, listed No Labels as a client.
 * Andrew Tisch
 * Director
 * 2012
 * Co-chair at Loews Corporation.
 * Kenneth A Gross
 * Director
 * 2012
 * Lawyer and political consultant and has written on lobbying ethics and conflicts of interest.
 * Andrew M. Bursky
 * Director
 * 2015
 * His investment firm focus on manufacturing, service and distribution companies.
 * Dennis C. Blair
 * Director
 * 2019
 * Promoted to Admiral in the Navy and served 16 months as Obama's Director of National Intelligence.
 * Charles R. Black Jr.
 * Director
 * 2019
 * Worked for firms advising and lobbying on behalf of prominent Republicans, industries, and foreign governments.
 * }
 * Superb Owl (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Promoted to Admiral in the Navy and served 16 months as Obama's Director of National Intelligence.
 * Charles R. Black Jr.
 * Director
 * 2019
 * Worked for firms advising and lobbying on behalf of prominent Republicans, industries, and foreign governments.
 * }
 * Superb Owl (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Superb Owl (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Lede
The lede has had various forms of describing the mission of the organization using weasel words like ''"claims its goal is ..." "a stated goal of ..." "describes itself as..." ''etc.

The ledes of other advocacy organizations don't follow this format; instead they simply state the goal of the organization: There's no need to phrase the mission of the organization using extra words. The lede can simply read "No Labels is a bi-partisan American political organization that supports centrist policies and politics" 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ACLU is an American nonprofit organization founded in 1920 "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States"
 * Human Rights Campaign focuses on protecting and expanding rights for LGBTQ individuals,
 * Doctors Without Borders  is a charity that provides humanitarian medical care. 


 * I agree re: those past attempts weren't quite right. What about using quotes (as in the ACLU example) for now? Superb Owl (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ACLU example is in quotes because it is a famous statement verbatim from much of the organization's history. As far as I can tell, "centrism" is not uniquely or famously associated with No Labels. No quotes should be required here. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on what little is public knowledge, No Labels seems pretty dissimilar to ACLU, HRC, Doctors Without Borders - it's a much newer organization with less of a track record, less transparency into donors and decision-makers, and seems subject to more debate around the group's aims. It's hard to tell where on the spectrum of 'public interest' to 'astroturf' the group falls (and thus seems riskier to put in WP:Voice, at least for right now). Superb Owl (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming equivalency between the ACLU and No Labels. The ACLU is just an example; it also happens to be subject to lots of criticism about its mission if you look at sections like "accusations of lost impartiality". We don't need to debate whether or not this particular group is effective in order to state its goals in a concise lede. Any organization, even one founded yesterday, that has been described by a reliable source can have a lede without scare quotes or attribution. E.g., Investigative Journalism Foundation was founded January 2023 and is described without scare quotes as "a Canadian not-for-profit organization that creates publicly accessible databases about philanthropic donations, political funding, and lobbying in Canada." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Investigative Journalism Foundation has no controversies noted on its page (ie reason to doubt its stated goals) and seems to fundamentally embrace and promote transparency (one of No Labels' many noted sources of controversy).
 * The ACLU controversy seems to be the group defending White Supremacists less often after the killing of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, which is not as notable as No Labels' controversies including donor-friendly (and mission-complicated) lobbying and potentially running a third-party vote-splitting ticket amidst concerns that even a close election could (or would) end Democracy in America. (1, 2, 3)
 * The European Privacy Association seems to provide a closer template as it's a group whose efforts have led to accusations of working toward its donor interests that appear (to critics noted on the page) to conflict with their stated goals. Its lede begins: The European Privacy Association (EPA) is a Brussels-based lobbying group, founded in 2009. Its stated goal is "to enhance data protection and Internet freedom as fundamental principles of democracy." Superb Owl (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of the two major US political parties has a lede without stating its major ideology, without putting "allegedly" or other qualifiers---despite the fact that many people believe at least one party to be acting on ulterior motives. It is clear that you have a point of view that you have tried to push regarding the Green Party and continue to push in this and other articles. Within reason, diverse points of view are encouraged, but this idea that minor parties exist solely as intentional "spoilers" is going too far. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I take your point on the two major parties being decent analogues since No Labels in practice looks a lot like a party (though for the record No Labels denies being or wanting to be a party). After looking at those pages, I can see why it’s much simpler just from an editor's standpoint alone to not want to get too precise with a very political lead and just give a slightly glossy history of a party. (However, I will propose 1-2 sentences discussing the article's notability and notable controversies per WP guidelines in another post).
 * I do believe that vote splitting occurs (most seem to think 1992 and 2000 were spoiled but probably not 2016) and don’t believe the vast majority of people involved have that intent, however, when it comes to newer organizations with relatively unknown and controversial decision-makers and backers, it seems responsible to show all well-sourced sides of a debate (within reason).
 * It seems we've debated the point on using quotes about as much as we can and will leave that be and 'agree to disagree' unless others care to weigh-in one way or another. Superb Owl (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * " in practice looks a lot like a party" It is a political organization with its own agenda, but it has not yet contested any elections. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, this new party (like the Green Party and any minor parties running presidential candidates) seems most notable for considering running vote-splitting ticket(s) in US Presidential elections. At the very least it’s one of the top 2 or 3 most notable things about these groups, however, like with the Green Party, the evidence of similar levels of notability for anything else is missing. For these reasons, the lead should mention when there is something clearly most notable about No Labels (which would be extremely difficult to define with the major parties, making them less useful analogues). Superb Owl (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Corporate candidates ≠ centrism
Why does corporate candidates redirect to centrism? Centrism could be mentioned on the page instead of the redirect. Doremon764 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)