Talk:No Labels - Wikiwand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No Labels article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nancy Jacobson's Family

It isn't necessary to continually reference Nancy Jacobson's husband. If we do, then we should list the spouse of every other person listed in the article. Ms. Jacobson is highly accomplished in her own right and continually referencing her husband doesn't add anything to the article. Bluetiger50 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)BlueTiger50

Please read my comments on the discussion page before immediately undoing any changes or additions that I make. Bluetiger50 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)BlueTiger50

Please explain why it is necessary to list who Nancy Jacobson's husband is but not the spouse of anyone else listed in the article, including Mark McKinnon, her co-founder. Bluetiger50 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)BlueTiger50

~~:Along these lines, would love feedback on how to describe Mark Penn's role in the organization (and where it fits in the article). Here's a draft paragraph:~~

Politico reported that the No Labels contracted significant work with firms run by Board President and CEO Nancy Jacobson's husband Mark Penn, awarding two contracts worth nearly $1 million.^[1] The organization denied this was improper citing that the rest of the board signed-off on the contracts.^[1] Penn's companies have continued working for No Labels, including conducting polling.^[2] Superb Owl (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the latest attempt to more comprehensively capture Mark Penn's notability re: No Labels (added him as a 'see also' wikilink pending this discussion) Superb Owl (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You created this discussion by replying to a comment that is literally 13 years old. The comment is so old that it could apply for a learner's permit to drive in some midwestern states. The person you replied to hasn't edited since 2017 and seems very unlikely to see your response. If you would like to start a discussion among editors that are currently watching this page then I strongly suggest you strikethrough your comment and create a new heading for 2023 so that it's clear this is a new discussion. I also disagree on the merits but would be happy to discuss somewhere people are likely to see it. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

~~Thanks for the suggestion - happy to start a new discussion and get your take Superb Owl (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)~~

References

[1]
Lippman, Daniel (December 8, 2022). "Inside the turmoil roiling No Labels' unity ticket presidential campaign". POLITICO. Retrieved May 6, 2023.

[2]
Kilgore, Ed (2023-05-19). "The Fallacy Behind No Labels' Independent Unity Ticket". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2023-05-31.

How to describe co-founders?

Mark Penn

Drafted a paragraph about Mark Penn, who has appeared in a number of articles around No Labels discussing him as a notable figure for No Labels. Thoughts? Superb Owl (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to start with an opinion (Mark Pen is bad) and then to find selectively-quoted sources to support it. It seems to have clear WP:NPOV problems and I don't think it's salvageable:

(1) if you are linking to your personal sandbox to show a proposed edit then it may be helpful to link to a fixed revision ID so that it's clear when the content has changed.

(2) the content you have drafted (as of revision ID 1183556809) appears to rely heavily on unreliable and biased sources. For example, Sludge appears to be affiliated with an advocacy group and does not have its own Wikipedia page. I can't find Sludge referenced in perennial sources but the evidence isn't good for it. The Intercept requires attribution as a "biased" source pursuant to perennial sources; your content has not attributed it. The Semafor reference is an opinion column (expressly called "Ben's take") and thus requires attribution per WP:NEWSORG ("opinion pieces... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact") but you use it for an unattributed statement of fact ("an aide confirmed...").

(3) the content you have drafted seems to suffer badly from WP:UNDUE in that the weight you give to Pen's involvement vastly exceeds what's in most sources about No Labels, which focus on the organization itself.

(4) you misquote your sources. For example, you take an opinion columnist's claim that "and few in DC buy Penn’s vague disavowals" and invert it to "few people in Washington believe he isn't involved."

I appreciate your work pulling together sources to support your opinion but it's just not Wikipedia quality, especially given WP:BLP. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give such thorough feedback (most but not all of which I understand your position. Semafor material referenced is NOT pulled from the op-ed part of the article, so it should be fine as-is but see what you're saying about the text which changes the relevance of the section entirely) - I will make the corrections but have no plans to post this. Will start a new discussion only if better sourcing becomes available. Superb Owl (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, can you share more detail about what you found out about Sludge? It's a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News, whose members have to meet strict criteria around transparency and quality in their reporting which was what led me to believe was of relatively high quality. The Institute has not been discussed on WP:Perennial sources, but wonder whether it should be discussed as a possible datapoint around the reliability of the hundreds of (mostly) smaller nonprofit news sources (at least for the ones that are in good standing as members). Superb Owl (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

While I broadly agree with the goals of the Participatory Politics Foundation, which appears to sponsor Sludge, it's still an advocacy group that is intended to stir a particular social change. A publication written by an advocacy group is unlikely to have the level of fact-checking and reliability that is discussed extensively at WP:RS. Advocacy publications remain unreliable even if I agree with them. I don't believe that membership in INN has been vetted as a way for small organizations to automatically become reliable, but I'm open to being wrong if it was decided somewhere. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found that discussion on using INN as a datapoint for reliability but am exploring it further to see how helpful it can be in assessing sources (curious to get your first impression). After checking Ad Fontes' chart, they rate Sludge as ~40/64 for reliability/original reporting with a moderately left POV. Superb Owl (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ADFONTES. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Related Articles