Talk:Cleavage (politics)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wording

C'mon guys, make it a bit less suggestive. "Sex becomes another cleavage"? Really?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not? --Dekker451 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality + Other Issues

"...this may or may not be genuine, such as the Nazi use of populist language to sway workers in Germany, and the modern American Republican Party promise to lower taxes to sway owners and the middle class."

1) The first example is an almost unarguably valid, historical example. The second, on the other hand, is arguable (and uncited), and concerns a modern political party, i.e. living persons.

2) Merely attempting to sway a group of people with a given promise does not preclude making a genuine promise.

3) I'm pretty sure that grouping "owners and the middle class" misses the point of the article, which is the existence divisions between groups such as owners of businesses and the middle class.

4) The section mentions the German Nazi Party and the American Republican Party, and no other parties, and suggests a similarity between them. It's a not-so-subtle Godwin argument and ripe for inciting a flame war.

01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.192.101 (talk)

Computer science

Another example of now to divide by cleavage, coming from computer science, would be Voronoi diagram. I don't know how to use this to add another example though.RJFJR (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and information update

I think the article will improve if the structure gets altered a bit, so I intend to do the following:

Make a section called 'Classical theory' in which Lipset & Rokkan's theory is elaborately explained
After this, create a section called 'Post-cleavage analyses' in which more recent findings from political science literature will be discussed. I think the part from 'post-industrial revolution' onwards can be included here, as well.

One error I noticed: in the 'centre versus periphery' part it says there is a conflict between the urban elite and more outlying areas, but I don't think this cleavage necessarily entails city vs. rural and should be removed. Finally, I will add references where missing and add additional literature. Marciojoseph (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on purposed improvements

I believe many of your intentions are welcome improvements to the article.

I agree that the article needs some kind of “classical theory section”, because as the article exists now It jumps into examples without sufficiently explaining what a cleavage is and the concept’s history. So I would include in your suggested “classical theory section” a more elaborate definition of the concept, the person who developed it (Lipset) and briefly the concepts history. I say briefly because you will address where it stands now later in the article.

I also agree with you that a section needs to be included where there is a discussion about the modern developments of the concept. Here I would also go into detail about how cultural cleavages are overtaking economic cleavages. This is an important development in the concept’s evolution.

But I do not agree with you about removing the section on the center versus periphery, as this is one of the cleavages Lipset identifies existing after the national revolution. It is based upon the national government which resides in the centre versus those residing in the periphery who are less concerned about the national government and more interested in cultural and regional interests. If you can get a hold of Political Science and Changing Politics, edited by Philip van Praag, the book goes into detail about cleavages and specifically mentions this center versus periphery cleavage on page 144, here it is called the cultural-ethnic cleavage.

Another improvement you could make would be to adjust the lead and introduction section. Because the article needs a clear definition of what a cleavage is in the introduction. From memory we discussed this in our lectures, Lipset based the cleavage concept on political groupings which emerged out of the industrial revolution, he should also be accredited with the concept. Also the lead section does not fully summarize the entire article’s main points. And yes the article is definly lacking references so I am glad that you have noticed this. WikiNicholasUvA (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your feedback Nicholas! I completely agree with you that the center-periphery part should not be removed, I also did not intend to remove this cleavage. The thing I was doubtful about, however, is whether a state's administrative centre is essentially located in its urban areas, as the article currently suggests (maybe there are examples of when this is not the case?). But I will definitely have another close look at the page you mentioned! Marciojoseph (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the two new sections that you propose will make the article much more structured and clearer than how it is right now with only the “Examples” section. I saw in your sandbox that you have named the new sections “Frozen Party Systems” and “New Cleavages” and I think that both of these section titles work better than what you initially suggested, since they make it immediately clear what the sections are about. You could also adjust the introduction section a bit once you’ve added the new sections, since I think that could use some work. It should serve as a summary of the article as well as shortly describing what a cleavage is. And adding more literature is definitely a good idea! --BlueSofa (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what I had in mind has already been said in the previous comments, which I second. I definitely agree that creating new sections/headings (especially the section on classical theory and the history of the concept) will greatly improve the article, as as it stands it seems that everything has been slotted under the Examples section, making it a little unfocused. I also second making little changes to the lead section, if you have time, though I was also thinking whether turning it into more of a summary of the article would be a little repetitive since the article is still quite short? All in all though your plans sound good, good luck! -Eannina1 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your purposed improvements (and the comments by the others) result in a great article. The contrast of the (previous) idea that cleavages are rigid/frozen and the contemporary idea that recognizes new cleavages is very interesting. In my opinion, this should definitely be elaborated more than has been done by previous writers and can easily be incorporated into your new sections “Frozen Party Systems” and “New Cleavages” (as seen in BlueSofa's comment). Good luck with everything! PokingNicolas (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]