Talk:Valence issue

How is apple pie a political issue???

Page issues
Someone needs to get sources on the list of valence issues and position issues. "Drugs" "the Environment" and "Healthcare" do not appear to be valence issues in the United States, no major US political party opposes Israel, and Apartheid and the Gulf War have been over for long enough that they are no longer issues - unless I've missed some very big news indeed, no politically relevant party in any democratic society still supports the Apartheid regime in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLMacLeod (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to develop this article into a more well rounded article, for instance in it's present state it is currently lacking how valence issue relate to civil society organisations and party competition. (WikiNicholasUvA (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC))

Improving the article
Based on my research into the valence issue concept I have listed below my purposed improvements. I intend to make changes to this article which incorporates these improvements.

I will expand the article in a number of ways to include important missing information, the specifics are outlined below.
 * The lead section has an insufficient overview of the article, it should provide a proper conceptualization which is also concise and outlines the article’s contents, it should mention that the article compares valence issues to positional issues and it should briefly go into how valence issues work.
 * The conceptualization of the valence issue concept is far too simplistic. The current conceptualization for instance fails to mention the concepts origin, the scholar behind the concept, how two important political actors (voters and parties) relate to the concept, how the concept works during political competitions and the non-policy and policy aspect of the concept.
 * The article needs to be structured properly, the different paragraphs make the structure somewhat clear but different sections really need a heading, for instance the section on positional issues needs a heading.

I purpose to add various new information, the specifics are outlined below.
 * Firstly, the positional issue section itself needs expanding the contrast is incomplete and there are important nuances that this section fails to mention.
 * There should be a section which outlines the various critiques of the concept. Not all scholars see a clear difference between valence issues and positional issues, empirical research also reinforces this perspective. There is a critique that valence issue scholars have a bias in their research agenda for certain regimes and regions.
 * There needs to be a substantive section on how parties and voters, the two most important political actors, organize themselves around the concept. This section would also help readers understand how valence issues function in a polity as valence issues have an impact on elections and policy platforms.

I intend to clear up contradictory information.
 * The first paragraph uses prosperity as a valence issue, however, an example that is more easily understood is corruption. Plus, there is debate over whether (or at least what aspect of) prosperity is actually a valence issue. Therefore, I will use examples of valence issues in the article where there is more consensus in academia.
 * Another point that needs to be clarified is that valence issues are not primarily issues where there is a consensus, this stems from the articles poor conceptualization.
 * The article details how US senators may organize around valence issues, this is only one of many ways that parties try to address valence issues. This paragraph would also be made clearer and not thought of as a universal axiom if put in a section which conveys how valence issue work with parties and voters.

I hope to remove bias in the following way.
 * There are no sources for the article's last claim on how valence and positional issues work in the US, this paragraph will be removed. By removing this paragraph the article also becomes less US-centric. However, the US is worth mentioning, and I shall do when I provide a more elaborate conceptualization as the US as a case was featured prominently in Stoke’s research.
 * The intended section on criticisms includes some research on valence issues in Europe, which opens the article up to a more global perspective.
 * Throughout my article there will be rigorous use of academic articles and books, the first paragraph of the article can be reworked to include references.

Current research concerning current political developments allows the article to be updated.
 * There is research on the issue of sustainability which is relevant due to global warming.
 * There is also research on how populists may use valence issues.
 * A section on new developments should also include information on the current state of the research field.(WikiNicholasUvA (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC))


 * I can see that you’ve already published your changes and the new sections look great! I think you have made this article into a well-rounded description and overview of valence issues. Especially the added sections on position issues and on the impact of valence issues on voters and politicians are great contributions. All of your claims are referenced and the literature on which your article is based is extensive and seems to be very well-researched. I think that the introduction section sounds good overall and summarizes the main points of the article, but I would go over it and make it into a more comprehensive paragraph. Right now, the individual sentences seem slightly detached from one another, which could be easily solved by adding some linking words and making it into an actual paragraph. What I also noticed is that you fluctuate between using American English spelling and British English spelling, e.g. writing “behavior” (American English) and “mobilised” (British English). This is not a major problem of course, but maybe you could choose one of the two spelling methods. --BlueSofa (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have read your edits and the article as a whole and you have definitely done much to improve it! I like how concise and well-explained your plans are (above), and how your edits clearly reflect your original plans. The article is well-referenced and researched and you maintained a neutral tone of writing throughout. I do agree with @BlueSofa that the introductory paragraph could be reworked into perhaps two separate short paragraphs, instead of spacing out each sentence; this would make it read a little less fragmented, though the content is all there. -Eannina1 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I really like the improvements that you have made to the article. It reflects your initial plans very well! When it comes to the factual accuracy of the article I cannot think of a needed improvement. The remaining improvements to make are improvements that concern the style and overall readability of the article. I agree with the previous two reviewers that the introductory paragraph could be less fragmented. Another point I would like to add is that it is maybe good to move (some of) the examples of valence issues more towards the beginning of the article. Thereby, people without much prior knowledge of the matter could have an even better and quicker understanding of a valence issue. PokingNicolas (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with everything that has been said already. I think your improvements made so far are very well done and extensive, and you properly cite after every single statement you make which makes the article trustworthy and improves the quality a lot. I also agree that the lead section can use a bit more finetuning by making it more into a story, and I would also like to add that the first three sentences especially are currently a bit hard to follow. As of now they do not provide an entirely comprehensive definition/concrete and clear idea of what the concept really is. But that is the only critical point I have, well done! Marciojoseph (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you all, I have since amended the lead section, incorporating your recommendations on its structureWikiNicholasUvA (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)