Talk:Advocacy group: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:00, 15 May 2007

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The standard academic term for this is "interest group" (at least in the U.S.) and Google suggests that it the most common term as well; unless there's any objection I'd like to move this to "interest group." Christopher Parham (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved content. J. D. Redding

I removed the article's claim that scholars prefer the term interest group to special interest or other synonyms in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view. I'm not sure what evidence exists to support this claim, considering that many of the most-cited academic papers and books on the subject readily employ the phrase special interest. (For example, one of the best models in the literature is by Grossman and Helpman, whose 2001 book is titled Special Interest Politics, and in fact has been cited more frequently than any paper exclusively using the term interest group. See Google Scholar searches for interest group and special interest.) — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do?

Add section on "interest group theory" although may be better of in lobbying (once merged with Interest representation: Academic overview)? Links:

http://www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/davis/IGelite.htm

Madmedea 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interests groups detroy America" is a biased statement.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Moved content. [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]]
-* I removed the article's claim that scholars prefer the term ''interest group'' to ''special interest'' or other synonyms in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view. I'm not sure what evidence exists to support this claim, considering that many of the most-cited academic papers and books on the subject readily employ the phrase ''special interest''. (For example, one of the best models in the literature is by Grossman and Helpman, whose 2001 book is titled ''Special Interest Politics'', and in fact has been cited more frequently than ''any'' paper using the term ''interest group''. See Google Scholar searches for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=interest+group&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search interest group] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=special+interest&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search special interest].) — [[User:Dustingc|DustinGC]] ([[User_talk:Dustingc|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Dustingc|contribs]]) 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
+* I removed the article's claim that scholars prefer the term ''interest group'' to ''special interest'' or other synonyms in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view. I'm not sure what evidence exists to support this claim, considering that many of the most-cited academic papers and books on the subject readily employ the phrase ''special interest''. (For example, one of the best models in the literature is by Grossman and Helpman, whose 2001 book is titled ''Special Interest Politics'', and in fact has been cited more frequently than ''any'' paper exclusively using the term ''interest group''. See Google Scholar searches for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=interest+group&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search interest group] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=special+interest&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search special interest].) — [[User:Dustingc|DustinGC]] ([[User_talk:Dustingc|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Dustingc|contribs]]) 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 ==To do?==