Talk:Lobbying in the United States
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobbying in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 years  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Addressing Study in article edit
The article mentioned in the 2nd paragraph states
"Lobbying can have an important influence on the political system; for example, a study in 2014 suggested that special interest lobbying enhanced the power of elite groups and was a factor shifting the nation's political structure toward an oligarchy in which average citizens have "little or no independent influence".[4]".
I believe that this should be edited slightly or taken out. The article in question is very controversial in how the data was interpreted. Despite this, the above statement does little to indicate that the study is anything other than fact. It should either be taken out or followed up by a statement as to why it is controversial. 67.79.54.150 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)L
- I disagree; the statement is reasonable, based on the source, and the source is neutral and reliable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Strange choice of image edit
The "Lobbying as a business" section of this article has an image with the caption, "Defense contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin sell extensively to the government and must, of necessity, engage in lobbying to win contracts." Fair enough. But the image chosen for this caption seems odd: it shows a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 airliner being assembled, way back in 1974. It's a nice image, but it has little to do with defense or lobbying for defense contracts. Surely something more directly connected to the defense activities of Boeing or Lockheed Martin, like the F-35 fighter, would be more appropriate? Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)