Talk:Pillarisation

message: I replaced "school with the bible" with "School met den bijbel" (protestant orientated school) because the reader won't understant the literal translation of "School met den bijbel".--Tomvasseur (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation issue 

message: Were there only three pillars? What about the liberals, didn't they form a fourth pillar? The table shows the three pillars and a fourth (general). The corresponding paper, political party and so on are considered liberal, so why aren't the liberals considered a pillar? Please clarify or correct this.
The general pillar wasn't a real pillar as the text reads: "People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle and upper class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists set up their own pillar: the general pillar. Ties between general organisations were much less strong. The political parties usually associated with this pillar were the liberal VDB and LSP, although these parties opposed pillarisation." The texts also says that there were atleast three pillars. I hope this clarifies. C mon 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The third pillar is the anti-clerical pillar. Intangible 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, Jews lived in the Netherlands in the 19th century. Where did they fit into the pillarisation system? Did the Jews form their own pillar? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article on Dutch Jews, "Dutch Jews were staunch supporters of the Dutch monarchy until the late 19th century. Most Jews became socialists during the early 20th century and were fully integrated into the socialist pillar before the Holocaust." (Hmmmmm. So that would group Jews together with liberal Protestants and atheists?) 68.32.48.221 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three pillars? 

message: Really? Tozznok 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris dancing? 

message: I think the primary and secondary school systems are also a leftover. Not directly, as in that they promote a certain pillar, but more that e.g. the organisation and ownership of non-public schools are still heavily tied to the Bishopric's in the South. This while strangely enough, the Catholic Pillar dissolved the strongest, with over 90% of the children on Catholic schools not having parents that are Catholic in more than name or not at all.
88.159.74.100 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remnants 

message: "Pillarization" is discussed by Arend Lijphart. If I find time I'll get some references from his publications. 166.137.136.213 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of References

message: Whole sections are not understandable as the writer's first language is not English.  Rewrite required.--User:Brenont (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar etc 

message: "while more latitudinarian Protestants and atheists were pillarless"
vs.
"People who were not associated with one of these pillars, mainly middle and upper class latitudinarian Protestants and atheists set up their own pillar: the general pillar."
Now I am confused... Anybody can help us out here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeming contradiction 

message: -POV (pro FPÖ/anti corporatist) even offtopic "young Dynmaic leader of the FPÖ"...
-the instiution by pillar parts asignment of instution looks questionable. For example theres some weird University for Freud fans just founded in 2005 asigned to the SPÖ side...
-Grammar could also be improved 
84.56.74.115 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria part problematic 

message: I don't agree the concept of pillarisation exists or has ever existed in Scotland. Better terminology would be religious segregation, particularly in education. From reading this article, pillarisation seems to occur where two or more groups of people live amongst each other, on near-equal terms, with equally-valid social institutions and government.--ML5 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll delete the link. Of course, if somebody can provide evidence, it can be reverted.--ML5 (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland? 

message: As I understand it, pillarisation is not a generic social science term to describe political segmentation but a specific historical term applied to the study of the Netherlands and Belgium. While Northern Ireland may be compared to pillarisation, that does not make it so. For a good example of this, see this work on Northern Ireland which uses the comparison but describes pillarisation itself as a "Dutch phenomenon". While this similarity should obviously be mentioned, I think the current equal weight given to Northern Ireland in the article (together with Austria and Malta) is undue. I also suggest that much of the Austrian case is merged into the Proporz article to avoid a WP:Content fork.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the only mention of Maltese pillarisation I can find is a single reference in this book which I think makes it a WP:OR. I propose deleting this section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to narrow scope 

message: The article is a bit vague about how much (if at all) the phenomenon of pillarization in the Netherlands is still relevant today. Surely as society becomes more diverse and multicultural and the political scene becomes increasingly more fragmented and less rigid with the rise of the "floating voter" the idea of a society rigidly divided into three (or four) distinct pillars looks like a quaint anachronism. In particular the line some companies even hire only personnel of a specific religion or ideology. This leads to a situation where many people have no personal contact with people from another pillar. Surely anti-discrimination legislation has put an end to this practice ? 86.174.216.135 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is cited to a work on Northern Ireland. I agree that it isn't relevant and I have removed it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verzuiling today  

message: There are initialisms for political parties (notably "PvdA") that are not explained in the text. I don't speak Dutch, and the Dutch names of the parties are not spelled out, so they're not actually meaningful. Related articles (e. g. Breakthrough) have the same issue. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained initialisms 

message: What about the split between DC and CPI?
and Austria goes far further
:
            	Catholic             	Social democrat	"Drittes Lager"
Political Parties	ÖVP (CSP)            	SPÖ            	FPÖ
Unions           	FCG                  	FSG            	FA
Pupils           	Schülerunion         	AKS            	
Students         	AktionsGemeinschaft  	VSStÖ          	RFS
Aid agency       	Hilfe im eigenen Land	ASSBÖ          	
motor club       	ÖAMTC                	ARBÖ           	
mountaineering   	ÖAV                  	Naturfreunde   	
Braganza (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria & Italy