Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 13



Template:Israel lobby

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)



Aside from the fact that it looks really ugly, the template appears to me to be a appalling hodgepodge of original research and WP:NPOV violations. GHcool (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - BUT don't assign it to any articles whatsoever until it's contents have been discussed on it's talk page and a consensus arrived at. In principal it is useful to have a template to navigate issues related to what is referred to as the 'Israel lobby' but in practice this isn't it. I agree it has many problems but it should be possible to overcome them and produce something genuinely useful, neutral and well sourced. Wikipedia has plenty of templates that are premised on contentious words, phrases, concepts etc that manage to avoid being turned into pov coatracks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP Of course, this template was just created several hours ago, shouldn't we consider that the editor who created the template may still be fleshing things out that might mitigate your WP:OR concerns? Also, how does the template "look really ugly?"  Are you referring to this type of lobbying?  I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ugly?"  Critical Chris   05:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's an WP:OR and WP:BLP mess. Nobody would be allowed to write in a Wikipedia article what the template says: that politicians have been defeated by the Israel Lobby, that newspaper columnists (mislabeled "journalists") are part of the Israel Lobby, etc. — Malik Shabazz 05:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete As Malik says, an unholy conglomeration of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and WP:BLP violations just to get started. Do we have a similar template for Catholics, Muslims, Lutherans, and speaking of lobbies, Big Oil, Tobacco, Healthcare, Doctors, etc? I don't think so. Toss this in the refuse heap as well. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why bring up the issue of religion? This template is about a nation-state's lobby, not a "jewish lobby."  To make the comparison is an association fallacy as the issue cannot be boiled down to lines of religion.  For example, in the US, there are many "christian zionists" who believe the existence of Israel must be protected in order for the second coming of Christ to occur.  On the other side, there are many public intellectuals (some of whom happen to be jewish) who are quite critical of the Israel lobby.  That there are currently very few "lobby" templates on Wikipedia, ought not necessarily preclude the inclusion of this one.  Critical Chris   06:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris you are absolutely right. And for the rest of you, please take a look at the fourth entry: Christians United for Israel. Michelle Bentley (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (as author) - There will be amble time to improve it. For instance, the next thing I am going to add, is legilation it has initiated, like the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996) . Most of the information is taken from Israel lobby, but when displayed in this graphic way --don't know it it ever have been done before -- for the first time (at least for me) you get an understanding of how it is organised. One of the most striking things you see, is how awesome, overwhelming and well-built it is, and how small its critics lurks in comparison. This is also an argument for letting it stay; its power is so great that to suggest that a template like this could shake it, seems far-fetched, and indeed would raise questions about what the basis of this power is. (Is it fear?) Thus it serves a democratic purpose : If Wikipedia is the peoples encyclopedia, it is at its proudest when it exposes lobbies likes this, that yields so disproportionally much power.Michelle Bentley (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stating that "wikipedia is at its proudest when it exposes lobbies likes this" does imply that your purpose is not to build an encyclopedia but to expose the evils of the world, which, may well be a WP:NOT/WP:POV violation. -- Avi (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True but Michelle doesn't own the template nor exclusively determine it's contents and usage so it doesn't matter does it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but must say that I agree in part with both the author and the deletion nominator. It should not be used until it is more complete/discussed, and it is, well, aesthetically challenged, so to speak.  It needs view/hide buttons, or something.  I suspect a category and subs would be more appropriate; I don't think one exists.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—should be obvious. The template is, aside from being ugly, full of original research and synthesis. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it "ugly?" Is the layout sloppy? Is it too lengthy? I'm not quite sure what you mean by using the word "ugly." Can you flesh out your concerns a bit for the benefit of this discussion?  Critical Chris   11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Critical Chris, I in my nomination, I used the word "ugly" to refer to the sloppy layout and lengthiness of the template, but I think the word can also be applied to the ugliness of the slander embedded into the template. --GHcool (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak Keep : Until there is time to improve it, including per suggestions above. Agree it shouldn't be used until then. Come back and try again in a few weeks if it remains problematic. I'll thrown in some suggestions there myself. There are a number of relevant articles now and at least 5 or more other countries with Israel lobbies (mostly in Europe) could end up with their own articles, so a well put together one is relevant. Also Israel lobby itself as a generic term could have its own article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my proposed version which makes it applicable to any country and simpler and less POV. Template_talk:Israel_lobbyCarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just realized what I created was an infobox - and that is a good idea. This template would have to either be US specific in name or would have to include all major nations and a few leading groups and individuals. Since there are just a couple relevant articles now (US, UK) and others only intentions (Canada, France, Germany, European Union, etc.), I change to "weak" keep. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the originator and others have not taken legitimate criticisms expressed here to heart, I vote to delete. However, I think and NPOV info box like I describe on talk page still could be developed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Malik and Avi. There's no way to do this without OR and SYNTH, as the "Israel lobby" is not a well-defined body or bodies, but rather an amorphous set of claims that this person or that organization is "part of the lobby". It's the kind of topic that can be handled with cautious wording in articles ("so and so claimed the X Foundation is part of the Israel Lobby, citing these actions"), but cannot work within the limited, black or white framework of a template. okedem (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a very clear case of original research, which also violates WP:BLP when lisitn individuals. Taking Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism as just one example - this is listed as one of the "main organizations" of the "Israeli Lobby", when the article itself does not mention Israel even once. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only think that might change my mind is if someone could should me WP:OTHERSTUFF on this one. On one hand notable because it is an anti-semite/zionist dream to catalogue something like this on WP and off the conspiracy websites, on the other hand, OR, SYNTH, and definite POV. --Shuki (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This template is so outlandish and poorly conceived that it  makes a laughing stock of Wikipedia.  My pick for the most absurd "fact" the author promotes is the assertion that  Adlai Stevenson was "defeated by the Israel lobby."  That  was good for a lovely chuckle, for which I thank the author.   I sent it to a colleague who has written about Stevenson, he collects nonsense of this type.   Wikipedia, however, might be sunk if the current tendency to allow the most radical elements to use it for political purposes is permitted to continue.  This sort of thing happens.  Antioch College is with us no more.  People with extremist views seem to have endless time to spend editing.  The template is, of course, OR and SYNTH.Historicist (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this kind of political purposes argument for me is that it can be made with equal validity whether a person is pressing for the presence or the absence of a template like this. It is a fact that there is a set of things collectively described as the 'Israel Lobby' just like there is a set of things collectively described as 'Terrorism'. Neither of these terms are easy to pin down given the diversity of opinions. A great deal of literature has been written about both of these sets of things. If people are capable of producing and maintaining genuinely useful templates for complex, contentious subjects like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Climate Change, Terrorism etc then surely they can, at least in principal, manage one for the set of related things described by some as the 'Israel Lobby' without getting dragged into partisan nonsense and a coatracking festival ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While the above by Sean is a major false analogy on many levels, the most obvious one is that the Israel lobby template contains such stretches of the truth that the template fails even the most basic standards of Wikipedia. Take, for example, the claim that The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times are labeled as "Institutions with affiliations to the lobby." This would be as idiotic as claiming that the above three mainstream newspapers are "Institutions with affiliations to terrorism" in a hypothetical "Terrorism" template.  --GHcool (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, agree with GHCool. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely that the existing template is about a wrong as you can get when it comes to these matters in so many ways. I congratulate you on having the restraint to limit yourself to just one example. However, my point is simply that it should be possible to produce a useful template where everything in it complies with WP:V for the collection of things referred to as the 'Israel Lobby' to help people navigation this complex issue. Is Wikipedia so politicised nowadays that we are incapable of dealing with issues like this ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer to Historicist (talk) and GHcool (talk). If there are objections to the inclusion of Adlai Stevenson, it is just a question of removing his name of the template. The information about him was gleaned from Israel Lobby. And to GHcool: It says Individuals and institutions with aff........ And again: The information was gleaned from Israel lobby. So it is just a question of removing these names, provided caggreement can be reached about it. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, who have spent years looking into the subject, do place these individuals as part of the lobby, with the possible exception of Thomas Friedmann, as stated in the relevant section of Israel lobby. Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being called a hypocrite, I'd like to ask Sean if he would apply his rhetorical question ("Is Wikipedia so politicised [sic] nowadays that we are incapable of dealing with issues like this ? [sic]") to the topic of terrorism. If I created a template on terrorist groups and included Hezbollah, which is undoubtedly a terrorist group by any meaningful definition of the word, would there not be ten Wikipedia editors jumping on me for labeling a "resistance group" as a terrorist? What if I included such groups as the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S. "charity" that has been found guilty of funneling money to terrorist groups, in a template on terrorism?
 * Answer to Michelle Bentley. Mearsheimer and Walt's book has been debunked by virtually every single person capable of critical reasoning, knowledgeable in foreign policy and Middle Eastern history, or tolerant toward Jews.  It is not the definitive tome on the Israel lobby that Michelle Bentley claims it to be.  It has as much weight on Wikipedia as any other single exceedingly poor source.  Basing a template off of this book alone is like basing a template about Barack Obama off of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.  --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good question and it has come up on an actual template before in practice. I believe it was called History of Terrorism and within a day or so everyone was there hanging their favourite terrorist org/country on it which I think included both Myanmar and the USA if I remember correctly along with many of the usual suspects and slapping it on article to their hearts content. I voted for deletion so I think you'll find that I'm the hypocrite rather than you. I think the argument was that the existing terrorism template was fit for purpose and had the advantage of working at the higher level of types of terrorism rather than naming individual groups and starting a pointless spiral of death discussion. Perhaps a similar approach is possible for the Israel Lobby but I'm not sure how that would work. For me, if orgs/people etc were to be named the inclusion criteria would have to be water tight and formally agreed. It should be as clear why they are there as it is why the Opposition orgs are in the Antisemitism template. If a formal inclusion decision procedure can't be agreed then I would drop the whole thing because it won't fly. It can't be as simple be 'such and such said they were part of the lobby' the same way Hezbollah can't be called a terrorist org by us because it's designated as such by certain countries. Are there people and orgs who would happily self identify themselves as part of the lobby ? I don't know.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While it is obvious that there is no consensus now, I suspect that there will be no consensus to delete in the future, especially if the discussion continues along these lines. At this stage, a template/infobox appears beyond what may be reasonably accomplished in a collaborative manner.  It is entirely too visual, regardless of the content; on the other hand, any informational organizational about the topic area method is virtually nonexistent, and that does not do well for Wiki's credibility or neutrality.  I am naturally assuming we are all beyond the point of claiming it doesn't exist.  Again, I will recommend the start of a category.  Just based on the mother article and its links, it could be quickly populated and might well comply with some of the author's intent and many of the deleter's objections.  I'd change my opinion in a flash, with this viable, more applicable and less argumentative alternative.  Comments? Regards,CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the same problem. As opposed to regular article text, with nuanced phrasings and claims attributed to certain persons, a category, like a template, is very black and white. This person and that organization are a part of the "Israel Lobby". But according to who? No such organization exists, after all. It's just a term some people use to refer to some organizations, with widely varying membership. How do you make such categorization verifiable? Unless you can find something like "Organizations with the stated goal of lobbying US politicians to support Israel" (providing sources for those stated goals, of course), I don't see a way to use either categorization or templates for this topic. Honestly, I don't see a need for such categorization. You can list claims regarding membership in the Israel lobby article, and mention the claims for the specific bodies in their respective articles, given the claims are notable and widespread. okedem (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Okedem, maybe you aren’t familiar enough or haven’t seen enough articles and sources, or don't live in the US. AIPAC says it outright as do most of the right-wing ones. How about Israel Project, Zionist Freedom Alliance, even 2-state J Street, just to name a few.  Take a look at the articles listed here, for starters, and you will likely reconsider. Obviously, I was wrong that “we are all beyond the point of claiming it doesn't exist”.  It is not the same problem; the article says it, based on what RSs say, and previous editorial consensus.   I do see a need.  The information is already included here, it isn’t invented, but it certainly isn't organized.  Encyclopedias are best when organized.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AIPAC has long been aggressively in favor of a Two-state solution, and was a major backer of the the Oslo accords. When you imply otherwise, you really are revealing yourself as extremely biased against not only Israel, but against accuracy and truth.  And it does make your effort to suggest that groups could be accurately categorized as part of an Israel lobby shighly suspect.Historicist (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't being sarcastic there. I really mean it - if you want a category of "Pro-Israel US lobbying organizations", that's fine. I'm sure you could do it. But that's not the full meaning of "Israel lobby", as it is used by many. If you make sure it's confined to organizations with that stated goal, and not other people's opinions or accusations, I won't object. I just wanted to say that's it's very different from the "Israel lobby" membership, as claimed by critics (and taken to its fullest by these absurd template. The New York Times... Where are the Freemasons, I ask?) okedem (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands. Dumping Richard Cheney, Charles Krauthammer and a dozen other folks into a hodgepodge of famous individuals with "ties to the Israel lobby" is not reasonable. A template listing only the organizations, such as AIPAC and ZOA, would be useful, and only that part should or could be kept. Chutznik (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a bunch of OR and SYNTH at best. Write something in your sandbox and put it up when it has at least the basic level of accuracy this encyclopedia (we remember that this is an encyclopedia, right?) demands, if you think this subject is worthy of a template. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adds nothing to the content of encyclopedia. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know if we can fix the title link, but the rest of it seems alright. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplicitous category - it's nearly as bad as saying the "Jewish lobby." Pro-Israel organizations do not operate at the behest of Israel. "Pro-Israel Lobby" would be more accurate.ShamWow (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How is "Israel lobby" "nearly as bad" as "Jewish lobby?" The former alludes to those who lobby for, or on behalf of, the strategic interests of a nation-state, while the latter implies a lobby for the interests a religion and its people.  Are you implying that it would be "nearly as bad" for one to oppose the current national interests of Israel as it would be for one to oppose the rights and interests of Jewry?  The former implies critical thinking and analysis in international politics and diplomacy, while the latter implies the ugliness of anti-semitism.  Are you seeking to associate these two?  Critical Chris   20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ShamWow. I love the disingenuousness of everyone defending this template. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See confirmation bias.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not completely analogous. But what does the "Israel" lobby or "Jewish" lobby confer? That they both operate at the behest of some homogeneous (and perhaps even sinister) grouping. Just as history has vilified Jewish interests, the world now seems to view Israeli interests as similarly malicious.ShamWow (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be drifting off track. WP:NAV explains what templates are for. We need to focus on that and forget about our opinions which are neither here nor there given that none of us are reliable sources (apart from me obviously). Can we make a useful template that helps readers without encouraging them to join a militant group or the IDF etc ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can't see keeping it in present form and put my suggestions on the page, but they would make radical changes to the template. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Sean.hoyland watch the personal attacks and assume good faith. Such a proposition as replacing Israel Lobby with "Pro-Israel Lobby" is by no means extreme.ShamWow (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon ? I don't think I've made any personal attacks. Who did I attack by the way ? I did rather take exception to Sm8900's "I love the disingenuousness of everyone defending this template" comment and made a practical suggestion to remedy that kind of attitude which abounds in Wiki unfortunately and is very counterproductive in my view. Sm8900 can read it or not. It's his life. If you are referring to nobody here being a reliable source, that is absolutely the case. Our opinions about the real world are irrelevant here. Everything we add to Wiki including to templates must comply with WP:V. This is a rather important point often forgotten when it comes to issues related to real world conflicts and so forth. We are not reliable sources and that means you should keep your personal political views to yourself and focus on the task at hand which is the template. I don't believe I've commented on the Israel Lobby vs Pro-Israel Lobby issue. That is being discussed at the appropriate page and I've assumed the template would simply follow the consensus arrived at there. I don't have a view on that issue. I'm not sure where your word "extreme" came from either. If you are referring to my joke "without encouraging them to join a militant group or the IDF etc", it's a joke about how these matters rapidly become politically polarised here, something I been trying to argue isn't necessarily inevitable for this template if we try to find a consensus. It seems that I may have been wrong about that. That's disappointing but I can't honestly say that I'm surprised. If for some reason you would like to continue making unhelpful and unfounded comments about my behavior feel free to drop in at my talk page.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Definition of The Israel lobby ( from The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University: "We use ‘Israel lobby’ as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. The lobby is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership, however, and the individuals and groups that make up this broad coalition sometimes disagree on specific policy issues. Nor is it some cabal or conspiracy. On the contrary, the organizations and individuals who make up this lobby operate out in the open and in the same way that other interests groups do. Using the term ‘Israel lobby’ is itself somewhat misleading, insofar as many of the individuals and some of the groups in this loose coalition do not engage in formal lobbying activities (direct efforts to persuade elected officials). Rather, the various parts of the lobby work to influence U.S. policy in a variety of ways, much as other interest groups do. One might more accurately dub this the ‘pro-Israel community’ or even the ‘help Israel movement,’ because the range of activities that different groups undertake goes beyond simple lobbying. Nonetheless, because many of the key groups do lobby, and because the term ‘Israel lobby’ is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the ‘farm lobby,’ ‘insurance lobby,’ ‘gun lobby,’ or other ethnic lobbies), we have chosen to employ it here." (pp. 112-113).'' Michelle Bentley (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the above comment is completely irrelevant. Secondly, even if it were relevant, Mearsheimer and Walt's book can hardly be called the definitive source on the subject capable of giving a definition that everybody can agree upon.  --GHcool (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No but the majority can agree upon it. Remember that the people behind this lobby are a minority, and that therefore their disporportionately great influence is seen as a democratic problem by many. Mearsheimer and Walt have done an outstanding work, and identified many organizations and individuals in the lobby. To further quote them: ''To be part of the lobby, in other words, one has to actively work to move American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. For an organization, this pursuit must be an important part of its mission and consume a substantial percentage of its resources and agenda. For an individual, this means devoting some portion of one's professional or personal life (or in some cases substantial amounts of money) to influencing U.S Middle East policy. (pp. 113-114) Michelle Bentley (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Michelle Bentley's argument above is an argumentum ad populum combined with a false premise, both of which are logical fallacies. To use a counter-example, the majority of the world accepts creationism as the explanation for the origin of species, therefore, according to Michelle Bentley's logic, the article on species should be written from a creationist point of view.  Wikipedia simply doesn't work that way.  Secondly, the assertion that "Mearsheimer and Walt have done an outstanding work" is the minority opinion among foreign policy analysts, not the majority opinion by a long shot.  The book has been debunked from top to bottom by virtually every single major figure who has read it.  --GHcool (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete' - This is completly WP:OR, WP:POV, and violates WP:BLP, in addition to WP:SYNTH. This template is full of slander and inaccurcies, not only with its OR on what organizations are part of the Pro-Israel lobby, but also indivduals "defeated" by them. - Epson291 (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think there's a way to do this without violating WP:SYNTH at the very least. Using Mearsheimer and Walt to argue your case is not helping the case that this isn't WP:POV as well, as their work is widely discredited. -Dewelar (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PowerDelete5000™. Many problems, GHCool gave a good analogy on the issue. Best rid the project of this hazardous thing before it spreads.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. So finally we have together in the same template people such as Barack Obama, Bernard Lewis, Norman Finkelstein, Paul Wolfowitz, Dennis Ross and others; some as being "defeated"(!) by the Lobby, some as being "championed"(!) by it, others as heads of Jewish organizations, etc. This template is in violation to WP policies such as WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, borders WP:BLP, and might be a magnet for POV Pushing and constant edit wars, while adding nothing to WP as an encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:The power of this lobby is so great that any attempt* to create an overview of its composition and structure should be welcomed, and I am sure that the irony involved in a situation where several wiki-editors frantically tries to quell investigations into this matter, will not have escaped the casual reader of this page. *) I am not saying that it is perfect, but it is an honest attempt. (Please take a look at it now, - it has been vastly improved.) It was --GHcool who included the section: Politicians championed by the lobby, which includes Barak Obama and until this morning also included the current Generalsecretary of NATO,Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and a gentlemen from Bahrain (never heard of him),Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa. These two entries have now been removed by me. It could have been some kind of vandalism, but I chose to regard it as a joke.Michelle Bentley (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even those like me who want relevant details out there think it would be more useful for you to use your energies to beef up Israel lobby in the United States which is missing a lot of necessary history and details and to create Category:Israel lobby and Category:Israel lobby in the United States or a very general infobox. This template has too many legitimate issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Carol. I have just added another template to Israel lobby in the United States. And I have title- and Cat-fixed the templates. The title now specifies that we are dealing with and American lobby. And today I managed to move the think-tanks up alongside WINEP, the most influental think-tank. I am quite proud of this improvement. Although it havent saved much space, it makes it more logic.Michelle Bentley (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I welcome anybody who voted on the Israel lobby template for deletion to vote on the template for deletion for Michelle Bentley's newest template. --GHcool (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Malik and Avi. This is original research and possibly a WP:BLP vio. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of course enormously ironic and hillarious even, that someone should issue derision because of original research, which generally is what drives the world forward. I am confident that everyone reading these papers did get the irony and frankly out-of-this world logic that lies behind this reasoning. But this is not orginal research. It is public knowledge, that these neoconservatives have relations to said thinktanks. And this lobby has initiated the stated legislation and helped defeat the mentioned politicians. What Mearsheimer and Walt -- two very cool heade academics (some of the finest in The United States) -- have done, is to sit down and track where these individuals where, and it is they who considers the listed organisations to be the most influental among the more than 50 such in the CoP.Michelle Bentley (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, you may take it up here. Unless you convince the entire Wikipedia community to abandon this policy, we will continue to demand that original research be stricken from Wikipedia.  --GHcool (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Avi, Malik, Historicist and others. It looks like the intersection of the Worst of POV and the Worst of OP/SYTH.  I don't care whether it looks ugly, what I care about is that the concept is ugly.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No original research, please. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  04:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The creation of the template represents a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP + A very smart looking template that is a refreshment to any page. And the basic information is correct and verifiable. Certain names may be disputed, but this is not the template's fault. John Bernard Winterbottom (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete Massive WP:NPOV problems, per nom. It is not now, nor should it ever be, Wikipedia practice to include scurrilous and massively controversial associations in a template. Ray  Talk 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an example of fuzzy conspiracy-theory thinking reduced to template form, and even leaving aside the obvious WP:NPOV problems, because such reduction oversimplifies facts that are frequently complex, it inherently violates WP:V, WP:OR, and in many cases WP:BLP.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and OR problems. BRMo (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is a very nice template. Most of what it says are established facts. If reasonable doubt can be raised about certain names, they can simply be removed -- there should be no need to delete the template. Those who wants to delete it should look at themselves: Many of you are working on a freelanche -- unpaid -- basis, in shielding Israel and its powerful lobby from criticism, so your organisation is a micro-cosmos of the larger Israel lobby, that this template describes. What it says is old news, and the drive to delete it can only be viewed as reactionary work, and a misuse Wikipedia democracy; those with a stake in the conflict in the middle east should refrain from casting their vote.PeterHarryson (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — PeterHarryson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Um...what? Seriously, what? I think I understand what you're trying to imply, and I'm pretty sure it violates WP:NPA, but...you know, if anything proves the poster's point above about "fuzzy conspiracy thinking", this is it. At the risk of violating WP:NPA myself, welcome to skoodley-woodley land, ladies and gents. Nah, not worth it. This editor's comment really speaks for itself anyway. This is what I get for editing while still half-awake, and for not sticking to nice, safe baseball pages. -Dewelar (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Males in gay porn films

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)



This was a template designed to be added to the "See also" sections of porn actor articles, but was only still being used on 5-10 articles. I replaced those transclusions with subst's & changed the template's instructions to call for subst'ing it instead of transclusions. It is a one-size-fits all list of "See also" items (only some of which may be relevent to specific articles it is added to), and propose it should be deleted to discourage use. (it is not even categorized in a template category or linked to from any Wikipedia-namespace pages to let users know of its existence). See also items should be added manually (as relevent) and not as a one-size-fits-all section. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a pretty useless template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Topps All-Star Rookie Rosters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)



Designation given on a baseball card, not a notable enough award/honor to justify yearly navboxes. Better suited as lists, which already exist. Another example of overtemplatization. Masonpatriot (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, we could also have categories for this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was thinking about blanking these. I regret making them.  Overtemplatization. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per reason given. Barely notable enough for a list, even. -Dewelar (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Inappropriate per WP:CLN # 5, "Take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related." BRMo (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all Overtemplatization, not notable enough for a navbox.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. It is not signifigant enough for a template and just takes up space. JayLeno175 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2008 Division II football playoffs

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Navbox info is more appropriate as a list, a list which is already included in the applicable article, 2008 NCAA Division II National Football Championship playoffs. Navboxes are not and should not be the preferred method of organizing participants in a post-season tournament, as mere participation is not a strong enough relation for a navbox per WP:CLN. I have seen navboxes that denote champions, but if the bar is set at participants, it opens up the likelihood of these templates swamping various college and university articles. If this template is intended to just be stand-alone and not one of many, there is nothing particularly notable about the 2008 playoffs as opposed to other years. Masonpatriot (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Navbox not really necessary, list form is more appropiate.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.