Talk:Sectionalism

More depth
The bulk of this article seems to be about US history at the moment, rather than the definition given in the first paragraph.

--TheParanoidOne 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true and of course we should write more about the sectionalism in general sense. -- Taku 22:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sectionalism in the context of U. S. History has a long path, its should definitely be included.

Someone ought to write about sectionalism outside of the United States, like the Serbs, Czechs, Germans, Poles, etc. who used to be part of Austria-Hungary before WWI.John edwards23 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence
Why can anyone change this info i could be making it all up!?!?!

"Sectionalism is a tendency among sections in bureaucracy to blindly focus on the interest of a section and look at the over tendency of the President's wrongs and not benefit the whole."

"Sections" needs to be defined or linked to a definition. The wording of this sentence needs to be addressed, as its meaning is unclear. I'm not sure that mentioning the President is appropriate here, as it is specific to the U.S. and sectionalism can occur in forms of government without a president. I suggest something like "Sectionalism is a tendency for subgroups within a beauracracy to blindly focus on their own intersets at the expense of the whole". Steve carlson 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod delete (wow)
I've just spent some time scrolling through the article's more than four year history. The original article was a small stub defining sectionalism as "a tendency among sections in bureacracy to blindly focus on the interest of a section". This seemed to be more or less consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary definition: "Confinement of interest to a narrow sphere..." . Then, on 2004-09-29, this was introduced: "In national politics, sectionalism is often a precursor to separatism, ergo, concordingly. you know what? I don't know what the hell im talking about. I just said it to look cool." The last part of the sentence was removed by another editor in good faith, but unfortunately that masked the fact that originally, that information was a hoax. So for the past four years, multiple editors have contributed good faith efforts to clean up the article, as well (unfortunately) as a substantial amount of OR, off-topic and biased statements. There has never been any references. Even if this article can be cleaned up, which at this point I think it's so muddled that that probably can't happen, it's still only deserving of a wiktionary article. Please, free us from this mess and get rid of the article! :-) (By the way, the now non-sensical bureaucracy introductory statement survived until 2008-02-22 .) Maethordaer (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article can be saved
The article is no longer unsourced but it needs much more. It needs more sourcing and more "meat" in t he article itself. This is an important topic that frequently has influenced our national politics. Can you help? JodyBtalk 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time everyone has put into this. It has taught me a lot. I will try and continue to improve this when I have the time. Maethordaer (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link at the bottom of the page (in the "external links" section) is broken. Does anyone know if and where this page moved? 173.67.11.87 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed this 71.166.57.26 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Interservice rivalry
This entry and the entry about Interservice rivalry actually talked about the same thing. I think it's necessary to merge these two entries.--Aronlee90 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Entirely U.S.-Centric at the moment
So I added some extra information on sectionalism in the United States.

However, I must say that at the moment the article talks only about the United States as of my posting this. I believe that if we are just going to continue building on this article solely in the context of U.S. history, then it should be renamed to "Sectionalism in the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers (talk • contribs) 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sectionalism in the United States
I agree that the largest amount of content is used to explain sectionalism in the U.S. I also agree that that area needs to be expanded, and possibly split into its own article. I would like to suggest that two books be added to the references: ″Storm Over Rangelands″, by Wayne Hage ″Sectionalism and American Political Development″, 1880-1980, by Richard Bensel [Quoted by Hage above]

″Storm Over Rangelands″ goes into great detail about how northeastern industrial interests in the United States have influenced the control of western U.S. resources. This sectionalism for the last 150 years has lead directly to recent actions in Nevada, Oregon, and Montanna. Because of these more recent activities than the American Civil War, sectionalism can be better explained to more people. I'm not real good at this, as this is my first "talk" session. I may not be putting this in the correct place. But I do think sectionalism has more facets than explained in the article.

Qsmxpilot (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sectionalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630172451/http://history.arizona.edu/tah/resourcess/topics/civilwar/sectionalism1812-1860.htm to http://history.arizona.edu/tah/resourcess/topics/civilwar/sectionalism1812-1860.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

UK portion is inherently POV
To describe Scotland within the UK as engaging in Sectionalism is itself taking the POV that Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom rather than a constituent nation of a Multi-National Union as per the treaties and acts of Union that established the United Kingdom in 1707 and explicitly promised to preserve the various National institutions of Scotland in that day, including a separate legal system and separate Established church.

Thus, describing certain Scottish organizations as engaging in Sectionalism implies that Scotland is a region of a single nation. This is inherently taking a radical unionist position in a time where political tensions in the UK are high.

In order to remove the POV aspect, the section on Scotland ought to be removed.

Ollie Garkey (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Should departmentalism redirect here?
A quick web search seems to indicate the term is used mostly to refer to what is considered excessive departmentalization, as opposed to concepts such as the whole-of-government approach.

IpseCustos (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)