Talk:Direct lobbying in the United States

Portal for Public Policy

I have noticed that some large topics on wikipedia have a "portal" on the upper right of all their pages with links to related topics. For example, Psychology has one of these portals. Does Public Policy have such a portal? If not, might it be possible to make one?

Vert3x (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few portals related to this topic: Portal:United States, Portal:Politics, and Portal:Government of the United States. You can pick all or choose the most relevant ones. It's up to you guys. A full list of portals can be found here. Bejinhan talks 07:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I found what I was looking for here: Template:Public policy. Perhaps it is possible to add a field of links for the pages our class is working on? Vert3x (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures/Graphs

Apparently, we are supposed to add some pictures/graphs to this page. I suggest the graph at opensecrets for starters.

Vert3x (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. We can also use the logo of the different associations that help "watchdog"? Chlopeck (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Important Links

Sandbox for Testing (Chlopeck's Sandbox)

OpenSecret Reports

PublicSecrets

Chart

As discussed in our lab, even though the chart looks great, you need to cite the source. You have not done so. Jaobar (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay...

• When I make a change to the article, please do not change it back. I have my reasons for the change and I would gladly clarify if asked. So before you edit anything I do, please check with me.
• Like I've said a couple of times, section headers should not have their second words capitalized unless it is part of a name or title. So, Lobbying Laws should be Lobbying laws, and etc.
• Again, I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say. I want the article to be in a good state and I find it difficult since my changes get changed back. Wikipedia articles work differently from college papers so please bear that in mind. Wikipedia has a manual of style and if the article is going to be promoted, it needs to follow the manual of style.
• The act puts restrictions on the revolving door in direct lobbying. <-- Please get this statement cited since it is alleging something.
• I will be nominating this article for Did You Know as time is running out. DYKs are hooks that are found on the Main Page of Wikipedia. They are a good way to garner attention to the article and DYK articles generally receive a few hundred views in the span of the few hours they are on Main Page. Articles nominated for DYK must not be more than 5 days old (hence, the dateline for this article is April 11). If it is older than 5 days old, it needs to be 5x expanded before it can be nommed. Since attention is drawn to the article, you guys won't be the only one editing it. Other editors will come in and make changes as necessary. Check the 'history' of Direct lobbying to view what has been changed and please do not change what has been edited unless it is vandalism. As a precaution, I will be removing the 'Revolving door' and 'Sub-group' section headers since there is nothing in the sections. DYK articles must be well-written enough (minus empty sections) to be featured on the Main Page. Readd the section headers once you have content to put in them. An image does not suffice.
• If there's any questions or if anyone disagrees with me, I am open to discussion. Email me if necessary. Bejinhan talks 04:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh! I'm sorry. I just copy and pasted from our sandbox and didn't realize that they weren't changed. We are definitely not trying to disrespect in any way, we really appreciate your input, it was just a misunderstanding! Sorry!! Chlopeck (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It might be better if you can edit the article instead of your sandbox. Everything should be fine as long as you use the preview button to view your changes before you save the page. Be bold! Bejinhan talks 03:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook

I have nominated Direct lobbying for DYK: Template_talk:Did_You_Know#Direct_lobbying. Bejinhan talks 05:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

American focus

Could someone possibly make it clear, in the lede, that this (apparently) refers specifically to American politics - or, put the term used elsewhere into context? Presently, it reads from an entirely American viewpoint.

If the article does intend to focus on a specific American term, that's fine - but it needs to state that, and give some indication that that is what is being discussed. See WP:WORLDVIEW.  Chzz  ►  01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I read it and thought the somewhat like what Chzz wrote. Direct lobbying is not exclusively an American concept or practice but this article, while informative, is exclusively American in its coverage of the topic. I would rather the article be globalised than made exclusively American. Honestly i read this and it made me want to be a lobbyist for a moment. Then i remembered i am not that greedy and also not American so i probably shouldn't look to it as a new career path. I normally do not tag articles for issues but Chzz brought this up two weeks ago and it appears nothing has been done about it. There already exists Lobbying in the United Kingdom which does mention how direct lobbying in the UK is becoming much like it is in the USA. There are lobbyists in Canada too. Most every country has them. Either this article should be turned into a more globalised article on the concept or be renamed to indicate that it is about direct lobbying only in the USA. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Direct lobbying stats graph picture

I removed the direct lobbying stats picture as it is non-free use per the For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center. stated underneath the graph in the source website. Furthermore, at the bottom of the site, it is clearly stated that content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. I will be requesting that the picture be deleted. If you want it to be used, please contact Open Secrets and request that they release the graph under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License 3.0. Open Secrets will then have to email OTRS. Bejinhan talks 02:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done at commons:File:US_direct_lobbying_stats.jpg. Bejinhan talks 02:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys can draw up a graph (Microsoft Excel or other graphic tools) from the information provided from the website. After drawing it up, upload it to Commons and state in the file info that the info was taken from such-and-such website. Have it placed in the article and in the image caption, cite the website as a reference. Bejinhan talks 02:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

I requested a copyedit for this article. Bejinhan talks 03:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I was wondering what else you think needs to be improved to move us up on the quality scale? Any topics to discuss,etc? Chlopeck (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, there are things that still needs working on.

• Paraphrase all material taken from sources. This is so important since Wikipedia takes copyright issues seriously and if material is taken word-for-word from a source, it constitutes copyright violation. So, for example: Communications regarding a ballot measure are considered direct lobbying is taken directly from the source. Paraphrase that.
• There is no source cited for: In order for an action to be considered direct lobbying, the party must directly send the specific piece of legislature they want to influence, whether it be in-person or through some other type of information exchange, to the official. They must also propose the new position and request that their position be taken into account during the legislation process. This is different than grassroots lobbying, because, instead of using the public to enforce an opinion, direct lobbyists exploit personal ties with the legislative body they wish to impact in order to spread their influence. Everything in the article must be cited. Original research is not allowed.
• Glean as much information as possible from the sources cited. I glanced at a few of the sources and it seemed to me such a "waste" that not all information in them about direct lobbying was used. So, just throw in as much info as possible.
• Avoid using many quotations in an article. This article isn't long but there are quite a number of quotations in it. For formatting purposes, use block quotations if possible.
• The DYK nomination was approved and will be added in the DYK queue in a few days time. When it is featured, your Direct lobbying team will be notified through messages left on all your talk pages as I listed all 3 of you as the article authors.

Let me know if you need any help. Bejinhan talks 05:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is terrific news! Please notify me when the article appears in the DYK feed. Thanks! Jaobar (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is! I'm excited about it. When Direct lobbying's DYK appears on Main Page, a template will be placed on this page noting that. Bejinhan talks 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Another note: I saw this was just added into the article: Lobbying is protected by the constitution under the first amendment. The bill of rights states that one has the "right to petition", which direct lobbying is. Please cite a source for it. Bejinhan talks 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I made some the requested fixes, with the citations, and added some information. I will continue doing so, and there will probably be a big update tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for all your feedback! Chlopeck (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looks wonderful. I applied some minor fixes just to wikify the article. [1] I formatted the quote into blockquote format. You can change it to Template:Quote if you like. The quote needs a reliable source per the general guidelines for quotations.

I was thinking of bring this article to peer review. Peer reviewers generally do a good job in recommending fixes to an article. But the queue at PR is long and it might take weeks or months before a peer reviewer reaches this article. If you are (hopefully) going to be around Wikipedia for another couple of months or so, I'll bring the article to PR. If not, then I won't. Fixing up the article through the suggestions given is time-consuming but worth it especially if you're thinking of bringing the article up a level higher, to good article status. Bejinhan talks 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a peer review. I'll probably monitor it. Also, I was wondering if the section Prof. Obar added has to be edited, with the citations and such being in APA format? Chlopeck (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, great. I'll bring the article to Peer Review. Yes, I re-formatted the whole section. When I have the time, I'll convert them to shortened footnotes (Harvard referencing) since various pages of a book is cited. My sandboxes. You inserted a picture of a handshake. It'll be good if you can explain the relevance in the caption. Right now, a reader will not be able to immediately connect the image with the article. Bejinhan talks 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the references to shortened footnotes: [2]. Bejinhan talks 12:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And put in a request for peer review. Bejinhan talks 12:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Coming along

This page is really coming along, what do you think of the image I added of the commissioner? I will be adding the revolving door tonight, and expanding on the spending a bit more upon Prof. Obar's recommendation that the money aspect is the most attractive. Chlopeck (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited its caption but other than that, it looks fine! If you can find pictures of other commissioners mentioned in the Notable examples section, add them in. I think that if possible, remove the handshake picture. There is nothing mentioned about "agreement" in the section and its relevance to the article is not immediately obvious. Bejinhan talks 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

When appearing in DYK?

Hi, just was wondering when this article will be appearing in the Did You Know feed. Been a few days. Jaobar (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here. It is in Queue 1 and will be posted today at 17:00 Los Angeles time. It will be on the Main Page for 6 hours. Bejinhan talks 04:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Revolving door lobbyist

I copyedited the section about Jeffrey Stockey. I removed the section about Jack Abramoff because the source cited, SourceWatch, is not considered a reliable source by consensus (see the discussion here). Maybe you can glean reliable sources from the citations found in the SourceWatch article? Bejinhan talks 05:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On another note, please work on the article perspective. It is either change the article title to Direct lobbying in the United States or give a worldview perspective. This article is not going to go far if this is not corrected. Bejinhan talks 06:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to change the title to Direct Lobbying in the United States? Chlopeck (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have to move the page.

• Mouse over the drop-down menu.
• Click the "Move" button.
• In the "To new title" box, fill in the new title: Direct lobbying in the United States.
• Fill in your reasons for the move.
• Click "move page" and you're done!

Can you find another example of a revolving door lobbyist. It'll look good if there can be a couple of examples or more in the section.

Bejinhan talks 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll add some stuff today. I'll use the previous examples as well with credible citations. Chlopeck (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)