Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish lobby in the United States

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish lobby in the United States

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

This is way too non-neutral from the get-go. The sources verify that the Turkish government lobbies the US--as does just about every other entity in the world. There is not an iota of evidence that there is such a concept as "the Turkish lobby," with a single definition and a single set of goals. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is not an iota of evidence that there is such a concept as "the Turkish lobby,"" except, of course, for detailed articles form ProPublica, the Washington Post and the New York Times documenting that the government of Turkey spends millions of dollars every year lobbying the government of the United States. I also wish to note that Wikipedia has an article on China lobby and on Arab lobby in the United States . I was editing that article when I saw how big the lobbying effort of the Turkish government is. It did not seem appropriate to add the material to Arab lobby in the United States, so I started this page. I think, actually, that the amount of money and influence is so large that each of the foreign governments on this page http://www.propublica.org/article/adding-it-up-the-top-players-in-foreign-agent-lobbying-718 merits an independent article about its influence on the government of the Untied States.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Notable topic. Plenty of independent sources available. If neutrality is perceived as a problem, then tag it appropriately. This isn't the forum for resolving neutrality issues.—RJH (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User RJHall articulates my sentiments exactly.--Hokeman (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources (three newspaper articles, though no doubt more could be found pointing at the same information) that Turkey lobbies the US government. The references cited are simply rehashed in the article--and what does it add up to? Not much of a concerted effort, and certainly not a whole lot of money. Is the creator of this article also going to make Egypt lobby in the United States, Moroccan lobby in the United States, United Arab Emirates lobby in the United States, Saudi-Arabian lobby in the United States, Lybian lobby in the United States, Dubai lobby in the United States, Bahraini lobby in the United States, Yemeni lobby in the United States, Algerian lobby in the United States, and Cyprian lobby in the United States--all based on the same NYT article? And argue a. that such lobbies exist (mind you, "lobbies"--not "some lobbying efforts") and that b. they are notable? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of your list is an Ad hominem argument, and even if it were our business to speculate on WP:OTHERSTUFF there is no reason to suppose that those articles would not necessarily be appropriate; they would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please address the matter at hand. Anarchangel (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is an ad hominem. I think you are misreading my assertion: none of these are appropriate. I have yet to see anyone here address the substantive difference between a lobby and some lobbying efforts. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News hit, even for the entire unwieldy title US Congress Debates Armenian Genocide Use "Turkish lobby" instead, and there are 134 hits from such disparate sources as Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Pittsburgh Press, BBC News, NPR, McClatchy, Times of India, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today and RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty.

Nom has not shown that the subject is inherently POV, or that supposed PoV content is chronic or irreparable. I don't see any PoV in the article as it stands, either. I do see that it would be preferable to get more information about their other activities (assuming they have some), but that sort of depends on them, and news coverage of them. There must be something in the 134 news hits, but I only saw Armenian genocide related stories. Anarchangel (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are hits (I see 129). But I note that a lot of those hits are in direct quotes, and not all of them are in reliable sources. Moreover, I'm still waiting to see a decent definition of what this Turkish lobby is. Arab lobby in the United States and Jewish lobby offer some kind of definition, a history, etc. If "Turkish lobby" is simply a term for the lobbying efforts by the Turkish government, that's not--in my opinion--an encyclopedic topic. The article lists a number of people and amounts, but as I said above, that would apply to just about every country in the world and a lot of NGOs and other organizations as well (think "higher education" or "agriculture").

In a word, I don't see evidence of an entity as a Turkish lobby--what I see is "Turkish lobbying efforts in the United States." Turks lobbying do not automatically a Turkish lobby make.

My "non-neutral" qualification stems also from the Armenian issue (and there is no Armenian lobby in the United States, though there may well be an Armenian lobby in the United States), which is really the only specific thing mentioned in the article (and in the sources, including that Google Search, since the 1970s). I am concerned that Turkish lobbying efforts (which would fall under Turkey – United States relations, for instance) are made, by virtue of news reports on Turkish lobbying, into an entity, a program--a bogey man of sorts. I am not suggesting that the author is some sort of pro-Armenian activist, not at all, but I am suggesting that there is a difference between efforts and entity. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this assertion and found that there is indeed an article on the Armenian American lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I stand corrected. While the sourcing of that article isn't nearly as solid as it should be, its focus and description, even given the relative paucity of current references, are both broader and more sharply defined than that of the current Turkish lobby. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, the Armenian American lobby is made up of American citizens lobbying their own government (the government of Armenia opposes passage of the genocide resolution since it hopes to maintain good relations with Turkey). The Turkish lobby is an instance of a foreign government spending millions of dollars every year to lobby the American government. A far different matter. And a very important matter.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is this not appropriate content for Turkey – United States relations? The 1.9 million dollar mentioned in the NYT article is less than what Morocco spends, and while it's more than I'll see in my life, in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. Besides, Gephardt, for instance, was paid for a job (as distasteful a job as it may have been), but one couldn't call him a "member" of this lobby. The Turks who paid him are government officials, and I doubt they have an office marked "Turkish lobby". All this is very much unlike the Armenian American lobby, under which one could subsume Armenian American Political Action Committee and a host of others. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but consider renaming), or Merge into Turkey – United States relations. This content is worth keeping, but I agree that the title isn't quite right - the subject of the article doesn't seem to be a lobby as that term is normally used (roughly, a collection of organisations and individuals campaigning for a particular position), but rather about lobbying by the Turkish government. That suggests this is more a subject to be covered in an article about bilateral relations; if kept separate, it should probably be renamed to something like Turkish goverment lobbying in the United States. Robofish (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Robofish, thank you for actually addressing the point I was making. I could easily live with a merge. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that when a foreign government spends millions of dollars a year to lobby and make campaign donations to American Congressmen in pursuit of its political goals (which may not match those of American citizens) it is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.