Talk:Elite theory

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elite theorists

This article talks almost entirely about elite theorists, and very little about elite theory itself, which is probably something that should be remedied. 129.133.127.184 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I knew

that certainly the discussion section of this article will be extremely short, mainly because no-one ever reads this type of stuff. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean!.. It's a shame. Mando Salama (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.182.33.21 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlanchePoubelle's edits on 5 October 2015 make no sense

The third paragraph of this article, added by User:BlanchePoubelle on 5 October 2015, is an unreadable mess that becomes word salad after the second sentence. Any objections before I delete it? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections for almost two months, I'm taking it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of Article

The template message states "the article has no coherent discussion of the subject, just a bunch of expert utterances in separate microsections." It looks like this has been a topic of discussion since 2008. I agree that the approach is too focused on individual theorists, but I don't think it's incoherent. There just need to be more connections and contrasts drawn between different theories. Anybody have any ideas on how to start?

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ctucke22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sunshine044, PJ8421.

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neema Parvani?

What actual contributions has this person made to elite theory? This part of the article reads as an advertisement for a youtube channel. If reliable sources don't consider him notable or a contributor he should not be in the article any more than any other youtube channel or twitter account that holds this position should. Publishing a book is not a justification either- there are textbook overviews of many strains of thought that dont contribute to the position. 84.203.122.165 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neema Parvini redux

IP, please produce some evidence of sales figures etc. if you want to restore this content. I’m open to being convinced but I’m not going to do the research for you. Prezbo (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Amazon.co.uk (what else am I doing) and it has like 300 reviews. So this is BS. Prezbo (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: https://x.com/OGRolandRat/status/1880439226787152212 posted by the author himself. Looking around, on his University of Buckingham profile, it mentions he supervises at PG level on elite theory, and by all accounts seems the world's pre-eminent expert on elite theory, bringing it back into mainstream discussion after a number of years in the wilderness. There are citations to the book and author in a number of political science journals. He seems to have made some fairly high profile appearances discussing elite theory and this has had a political impact in recent election cycles. Don't see any reason not to include, book looks like it sold more copies than some of the originals. He obviously has a large following, so the sales figures are probable. 151.2.151.78 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're makimg progress here. The way Wikipedia works, there needs to be a reason TO include, the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is one. The reason NOT to include, from my perspective, is that his book was printed by a fascist publisher (Imperium Press) and I'm seeing little evidence that he's had an impact outside that loathsome subculture. If you want to add back this section you need to demonstrate that his work has had a significant impact on the world at large, with reference to what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" (not the author's twitter, this is a self-published source). If you can produce some reliable sources to back up the claims that he is the world's greatest expert on elite theory, that he's had an impact on elections, etc., I'll start to wonder if you might be right. Currently I think there's about a 90% chance you're just trolling--your former username ("MorrisseyEnjoyer1488," cute) was an obvious Nazi reference and a Google News search for "Neema Parvini" just produces opinion pieces from far-right publications. So the claim that he's had an impact on elections seems doubtful to me. But I'll go through the normal Wikipedia evidence-evaluating procedures here. Prezbo (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, read WP:RS and WP:DUE if you want to understand Wikipedias standards for inclusion better. Prezbo (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]