Talk:Letterhead organization

Untitled

I was afraid this would be a "useless article" but dang if the term is not used a lot historically - and pretty notable uses indeed. In short - I strongly think this topic is notable. Collect (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit surprised as well. I like your additions but after checking the sources I think there is a need to distinguish between actual letterhead organizations like the National Defense Committee and those that devolved into letterhead organizations like the Social Unit Organization which started with over 100 members according to the source. I think there is a category difference between organizations which were originally organized as letterhead organizations and those which devolved into letterhead organizations. Note - I am purposely not addressing PNAC because it is iffy because High says it devolved and I tend to think it meets the definition of a letterhead organization. I have no issue with the entry as it stands. Jbh (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My goal was to list representative organizations which had been mentioned in very strong sources. This is likely an article which should have existed long before now. Collect (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree. I was just mentioning that there is a difference between organizations which were formed as, and did their work as letterhead organizations and those that are mere remnants of organizations which did their work as larger organizations cf. the two I mentioned above. I am not saying they should be removed. I just think the difference should be addressed and wanted your input. Jbh (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When we get a couple dozen examples or so, maybe can then figure out dichotomies in the group - for now let's get this past any AfD territory as being "not notable." We have usage over a period of over 90 years in the US at this point - I would love to get some European examples in here lest anyone say "US-centric" <g>. Collect (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you have any sources that define or talks about what a 'letterhead organization' is. I did a quick search but have not found anything yet. The definition in the lead is well done and has to have come from somewhere. I will keep looking as well. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Another organization

Progressive Alliance

Progressive Aliance

Alliance activities were educational and preparatory such as holding conferences on the problem of plant shutdowns and commissioning and publishing studies on such issues as stagflation and the impact of corporate money on the political process. Alliance leaders rejected a proposal to organize a march on Washington to protest Carter budget cuts and discouraged attempts to form local branches of the coalition. As a result, there was only a very limited grass roots component to the coalition; it ended up being little more than a letterhead organization.Halpern, Martin Jimmy Carter and the UAW: Failure of an Alliance - Presidential Studies Quarterly p.768

Not sure what you want to use from the quote. Jbh (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Likely not a reliable source, an editor of a militant labor magazine, but it might lead to reliable sources on the Progressive Alliance: [1] Dear0Dear 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Europe's National Television Council

Here is a place where the term is used for a European organization National Television Council The source is on Questia Wilson, H. H. Pressure Group: The Campaign for Commercial Television in England p.160 Jbh (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

I think the operative requirement is that the organisation seeks to imply it has influential backing which it does not actually have, more than anything else. In short, "lists of celebrities" who actually have nothing to do with the organisation are a prime characteristic. Very common in political campaigns ("Biologists for Gnarph" etc.) ("Socialists for Paul") and so on. Collect (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, your suggested operative requirement is wrong. Wattenberg for example uses the phrase matter of factly, to denote organizations that get attention and carry out public activities with the strength of their supporters' association. Such organizations do have an influential backing. Your intended usage is already discussed in the article, in the discussion of "lo"'s derogatory use. Dear0Dear 07:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as a characteristic we still need some good sources that talk about 'letterhead organizations' as a class rather than just bunches of things named as such. I agree such a thing exists and should be notable we just need something that says so to get out of OR territory.
Jbh (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dear ODear ODear and 0Dear: do you have a source for the definition of 'letterhead organization' that you wrote in the lead? That is what is needed to tie down notability for the article. I think it is a good definition, I just can not find a source for it. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is used in US politics. I wrote off the top of my head. Dear0Dear 00:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Youch! That is going to hurt. Without sources the whole foundation of the article is OR. I will dig through my personal library to see if I can find something but that means using indexes not fancy cool search engines :) Jbh (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Help can be had from an organizational sociologist interested in politics/social change, e.g. @Piotrus and Volunteer Marek:. Dear0Dear 07:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Um. Reporting as request. OR is a big problem here. The term exists, sure. But I am not seeing any good definition of it. helps, describing it as "one individual with or without expert knowledge of the subject". [http://lawmeme.law.yale.edu/static/a2k/transcripts/Policy%20Panel%204c%204-23-06_TheRoleofLibraries.doc gives "A letterhead organization means there's no real staff other than this one staff" but this is a transcript of an interview, so... not a very good source. Through I think you can build a definition from a number of sources, Google Books for "Letterhead organization" shows quite a few: "X was merely a "letterhead" organization... It had no permanent officials and shifted headquarters every two years." "It operated more as a “letterhead” organization, announcing the support of prominent individuals for the reform on its letterhead, but without the staff and the financial resources to effectively direct the scattered movement across the country." "It's nothing but a letterhead organization. It has no grass roots, no constituency." "A letterhead organization, set up ad hoc, soon to disappear without a puff of smoke.". From the sources in this article: [2]-> Ten years later, it is now a 'letterhead' organization, and functionally dead." I can't access the second ref, [3] this one has a similar sentence, something like "In most states, it was merely an unpopular letterhead organization". Etc. Unfortunately, synthesizing a definition is borderline OR. Plus, what I am getting from those definitions is that a "Letterhead organization" refers to an unimportant organization that has little but its acronym. There seems to be a second use tied more to being an opposite to a grassroot organization, but it isn't consistent, and what the lead of this article describes doesn't seem to fit that well. I am afraid that if no sources can be present that properly define this, this is not going to stay here. Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's research on what "letterhead organization" term should be, and/or list such organizations based on one's invented definition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Piotrus (talk · contribs).

This is not a good-article review, of course, and I am gratified that our scruples have not resulted in an AfD, which (at worst) would have resulted in a list of alleged letterhead organizations. The discussion here, quoted in Further Reading, demonstrates that the topic is not OR:

Salisbury on Letterhead organizations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further reading J. M. Berry. 1977. Lobbying for the People. Princeton UP. ISBN:9780691611778 (Cited by Salisbury, pp. 66-67 and in reprint as p.40) Robert H. Salisbury (1984). "Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions". American Political Science Review, 78, pp 64-76. doi:10.2307/1961249.[4] JSTOR pp. 66-67. Reprinted as Chapter 2 in Robert H. Salisbury. Interests and Institutions: Substance and Structure in American Politics. Pitt series in policy and institutional studies, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992 ISBN 0822976889, 9780822976882. "the organization that is nothing more than a letterhead, lacking membership altogether. Interest groups to which nobody belongs and which do not even provide for the possibility of membership are quite common among public interest groups, as Berry (1977) has shown." (page 40)[5]

Salisbury has an amusing quote about definitions at the end of his introduction.Dear0Dear 10:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We should base our defininition on Salisbury's and others, leave as little as possible to ourselves (basically, combine and rephrase existing definitions for grammar). Perhaps a section on definitions would be helpful. This is needed to prevent this from AfD on OR grounds. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sociologist so I actually can't tell you how common or well defined this term is. Just speaking as a layman, this article does look like it's got a good bit of original research in it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC) To clarify, by that I don't mean that it's necessarily "non-notable" level of OR, just that there is some.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Kemble founded Freedom House?

A sloppy discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ben Wattenberg credits Penn Kemble with founding Freedom House, although he failed to mention that Kemble was a time traveler. I did not see other errors. Point: Responsible editors should always try to double check what Wikipedia defines to be "reliable sources", especially when discussing contentious topics in recent politics. Can I hear an "amen!"?[6] Dear0Dear 23:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Actually it says he was "linked" to lots of organizations - not that he founded them. (" That’s where those 29,600 Google entries come in, mostly but not entirely friendly, linking him to most every letterhead organization that was designed to extend and promote freedom including — to name a very few — the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Freedom House, the Foundation for Democratic Education and Prodemca. ") No error. [7] "The trustees and staff of Freedom House mourn the death of our colleague and friend, Penn Kemble." Acknowledged by Freedom House itself. Collect (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC) My mistake. However, Freedom House is not just a letterhead organization. It does substantial & recognized research and extensive public-education like a think tank. It also issues alerts when e.g. reporters are jailed or abused. Dear0Dear 23:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Nor did Wattenberg call Freedom House a letterhead organisation -- just that Penn had lots of googled connections to everyone. Collect (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I shall go to sleep, well after my bedtime. It was pleasant to see people improving an article rather than engaging in ideological muay thai. Dear0Dear 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Hidden. Dear0Dear 10:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)