Template talk:USLobbies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template appears very POV, in that it appears to link the Arab Lobby with the gun lobby and other lobbying organizations. I see no reason to link these together. Yaf 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see that it is linking the arab lobby with the gun lobby except to say that they are both lobbies. There should be more added to the list -- such as abortion/pro-life, the anti-war/peace lobby and the arms industry -- but we need to start somewhere. I created the template in part to further bring together these separate articles on similar topics so that they are improved. --Deodar 04:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also this related article Political_action_committee that has a similar list, although well justified by a good source. Maybe some mergers are in order? --Deodar 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. But, looking ahead, it appears to be setting the template up for receiving a myriad of unrelated and patently offensive links. I can just see the NAMBLA, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and other similar lobbying groups on the one hand, along with Daughters of the American Revolution, League of Women Voters, and other well-regarded lobbies, all of which will soon be demanding equal time, too, in the template :-) It would be hard to keep the "good ones" and not have the patently offensive ones. I don't see the need to intentionally link unrelated and patently offensive organization links with the "good guys". What do you think? Yaf 04:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I was saying away from specific groups and dealing with the larger coalitions of special interest groups. But it is true one has to set a clear bar for what is notable -- to avoid inclusion being a subjective judgment call/OR. Would using the list given by Political_action_committee based on OpenSecrets.org classification of the major PAC lobbies be effective? It is fairly similar, although it doesn't include some of the ethnic lobbies (China, Cuba-American, Arab)? --Deodar 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the tenderbox characteristic of the world at present relative to ethnic topics, this might even be a good thing. I looked the list over, and I must admit it looks like a good one, and sets the bar higher. I especially like the break out of gun rights and gun control, instead of a single gun lobby. Gun Lobby is a politically-loaded term usually meant to disparage gun rights organizations. Using this list also avoids the appearance of links to controversial lobbying groups on what are widely regarded as uncontroversial article pages. Why put a link to a patently-offensive organization on an otherwise mainstream article page. Keeping the bar higher would tend to keep Wikipedia in school library computer sites as a permitted site, instead of being blocked :-) Yaf 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should say that we can place the template on pages of minor groups that are primarily groups that lobby the US government even if we don't include them in the template -- this if NAMBLA is involved in significant lobbying of the US government then the template could go on that page, although NAMBLA would NOT get to go in the template since it doesn't meet the bar of notability set by OpenSecrets.org. The template can be expanded to include the basic terms associated with US lobbying (like PACs, link to full list of PACS, etc.) besides just being a list of the major lobbies. This way it becomes a more full guide to the topic area. --Deodar 04:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me :-) Later... Yaf 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reformulated it based on OpenSecrets.org classifications of spending. --Deodar 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks very nice now! I enjoyed working through this with you. Yaf 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single Issue lobbies?

The Repulican Party and the Democratic Party are "single issue lobbies"?

[edit] Left-right alignment

This template isn't totally aligned right, there's a pretty wide margin on the right. Can somebody fix that? -- NaBUru38 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done it. -- NaBUru38 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)