nonpartisanship

Much of this article focuses on nonpartisan organizations which operate within a partisan democracy. But, the article on "nonpartisan democracy" focuses on how a democracy itself might operate as nonpartisan. 206.14.93.37 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough. How about renaming this article to "nonpartisan race"? -Pete (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No no reason to merge very different issuses Gang14 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree, they are not similar at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.45.218 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too that they are different concepts, and am removing the "merge" tag. -Pete (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Are non-partisan elections even important?" Private name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.78.181 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Rifle Association ... functions almost as an adjunct of the United States Republican Party. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has for many years functioned as almost a subsidiary organization to the United States Democratic Party.

All these claims need citations, otherwise they sound like POV, regardless of whether they are true or not. I know both organisations champion causes that are typically associated with one or other of the big parties, but if that makes them partisan, then any single-issue campaign group would be if their cause is typically associated with a particular party.

Likewise, the claim about the labor unions being undeclared partisans of the Democratic Party needs sources. In my own country, trade unions are usually publicly and officially associated with the Labour Party, or else despise it and think its sold them out. Is the US situation that different?

Besides, even if all those claims are true and can be cited, do they really belong in the lede? Wardog (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lok Sabha (house of the people) or (Lower house} in India has space for two Nonpartisan members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in this article reads: "Nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with, and a lack of bias toward, a political party." For my understanding, the word "lack" means "something that should be there but that is not there". I am not sure whether "absence" is a better word, it has several meanings (from Absence, "The (local) nonexistence of something" applies here). --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

en wiktionary (https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/dict/en/lack#Noun) says: lack = "A deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want." --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Advisory Committees, that are independent from political parties, sometimes are called "nonpartisan" in Wikipedia articles, such as in Jaap van Dissel. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In these cases, the word "nonpartisan" means probably: not being under the predominance of a single political party, not belonging to the influencial sphere of a single political party. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would personally say the lack part is fine, as a native speaker of English, though someone else may disagree. Absence would work as well – I'll leave the decision on that one up to someone else.
(Also, I assume you unintentionally put that above the other messages in this section?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Now i looked it up again in the en Wiktionary: https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/dict/en/lack , in the paragraph "Etymology 1", subparagraph "noun", the meaning is explained as "A deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want." I try a deep link into the wiktionary, for the first(?) time of my life: wikt:lack#Noun. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)