Talk:Politics of the Netherlands

Queen Beatrix

I edited out a lot of info on Queen Beatrix, which consisted almost entirely of her full name. I have 2 reasons for this edit: 1. This article is on the political structure of a particular country in general, not specifically on the individuals who may occupy particular posts within that structure. 2. Anyone who may be interested in this info can find it at Beatrix of the Netherlands which is much more logical --Dengo 16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Majority Vote; Two-Thirds Vote

A majority is NOT "fifty percent plus one." It is "more than half." An example will suffice. If a group has 101 members, then 51 votes is a majority. If "fifty percent plus one" were the rule, we would need 52 votes (101/2 = 50.5 + 1 = 51.5, rounded to 52), and that is not correct, because in a group of 101, 51 votes is a majority. A majority is a majority is a majority, so it is not necessary to be redundant and use the words "simple majority." Likewise, it is not a "two-thirds majority," but rather, a two-thirds vote.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Seats per Party

Will anyone mind if I edit the "seats per party" table out of this article: it does not look very professional, and most of the information is redundant: anyone can look it up at "Dutch general election, xxxx" or the respective parties. Any objections? -- C_mon 6:51, 17 december 2005

Well, if it doesn't 'look professional' then make it so, although I don't know what you mean by that. Indeed one can look all that up separately, but that dies not give an overview, which gives insight into the development of the political climate and the formation, rise and fall of parties (insofar as applicable). And there are 26 election rounds to look up (and given the present speed of Wikipedia no-one is going to do that). But those articles don't show the cabinets (at least not the one I checked, and, for the reason given, I'm not going to check them all). This article does (so one would have to switch between the pages to get that connection), but it doesn't give the votes/seats per party and therefore doesn't give the 'strength' of the coalition. And the 'Dutch general election, xxxx' don't give all the parties. So I'd rather turn this around. If we already have all that info in one single overview, the why also have the separate articles? It could be expanded to include earlier elections, though. DirkvdM 08:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly I don't think this table can ever look professional: there are just to many parties to make a clear overview. Parties also come and go way to often to make such a table legible. Maybe we could put all the small, and "irrelevant" parties into one category, and just show the major parties and a rest category. Or limit the table to 1977-2000, when with the creation of the CDA, the number of parties was drastically improved

BTW, there already is a paragraph in this article supposed to give insight into the development of the political climate usw namely the historical overview. And finally the reason why I suppose we don't put everything in one article is the following: "This page is 57 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.".

Maybe we can find some middle ground in a table of 1977-2000 or a table with major parties and rest category? C_mon 12:05, 18 December 2005

The article may be too long, but that doesn't mean it is. But if it is, the thing to do is not delete info but split up the article. I still don't know what you mean by 'professional' The table is made up the same as the one above it, just without all the links (I didn't want to duplicate those).

Your use of the word 'improved' suggests you don't like a large number of parties. I do. They're certainly not 'irrelevant' (although you put that between accolades too). But that's pov and anyway irrelevant here :) . Is the size maybe a problem for you? Does the table extend beyond your screeen? That might indeed be a reason to make it narrower. But you'd have to have a pretty narrow window for that to happen and then only the parties you don't want to include disappear, so I don't see a problem there. About the length, I'd rather see it expanded to include all elections, also the ones before WWII.

There is indeed a historical overview paragraph, but that doesn't give as much info as the table (mostly, it gives rough indications, no raw data). And a picture says more faster. It's a better overview. I know some people don't like tables, but I've nbever understood that. I (and many people with me) prefer them strongly over words (if they're good, that is, with a proper legenda for example).

Maybe the article should be split up. The tables might go to the Elections in the Netherlands article. And/or they might be merged. I've looked over the 'politics' and related articles for various countries and there doesn't seem to be a standard here. Maybe that should be established first. Also, there is loads of info about the principles of the politics of a country, but info about the present government and real-life political developments is often lacking. DirkvdM 10:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My main point against the way the table currently looks is that it looks really really cramped. Maybe a chart would look better (the same is done for European_Parliament#Political_groups_and_parties). That would also give a better oversight. Maybe we can expand the historical overview, to give more than rough indications, I think making to more specified would indeed improve the article. I originally wrote the historical overview, because I like you, thought that the dutch politics article is to much about the constitution, and the political system, and too little about real politics.

I happen to own year to year list of the number of members in parliament per party. Including MPs who left their party to join another or to found their own. I'll see if I can get a goodlooking chart out of that and I'll post it on the talk as soon as possible.

C_mon 12:38, 19 December 2005

I agree that a more expanded historical overview would indeed improve the article. However, I would like to point out that there are already articles on History of the Netherlands and History of the Netherlands: modern history (1900-present). As far as the table is concerned, I do agree that it is a tad bit on the large side (dunno about 'professional')--Dengo 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As promissed: the figure. If there are no objections, I'll put it up tomorrow morning -- C_mon 16:23, 1 January 2006

File:Seats per party.jpg

seats per party 1945-2003

Very nice work! A much better first overview than my table. Though it can't replace that because it lacks the coalition info, but maybe that could be merged into the cabinets table above it. Or the other way around, depends on how you look at it. And the extended table (preferably extended even further into the past) could then go into a separate article.

But why did you save it as a jpeg? For vector-images (such as drawings, as opposed to photos) gif is a better choice. With gif you don't get those artifacts.

And a major omition is a timeline at the bottom.

The ordering of the parties puzzled me at first, but for those who know about Dutch politics it becomes clear quick enough; from top to bottom right wing, left wing and confessional parties. But for those who don't, that might be indicated at the far right, with D66 and DS70 left somehow 'in limbo' (or how does one say that?).

The graph shows quite nicely how the left remained fairly constant but that there has been a transition from confessional to right wing. This might be made a bit clearer by putting them side by side, with the left at, say, the bottom. Thus, the far left and far right could be nicely juxtaposed. Not sure if you use a program that would make that change easy. If not, never mind. Oh, and I now reqlise that that would no longer place D66 and DS70 nicely between the right and the left. And I don't suppose D66 would like to be placed next to CDA (although they have cheated their voters in this respect :) ). By the way, why are religious parties called 'confessional parties' in stead of simply 'religious parties'? But that's a different matter.

In two instances are the colours confusing. One is with CPN and SP. The fact that they're both at the far left actually makes it more confusing, although the separation by the Groen Links graph should make it clear. Still, a slightly more different colour would be better. The other is with LPF and BP. Both far right, but not quite the same. Maybe LPF could be made pink :) . Those who get the pun probably won't mind and those who don't, well, they've got no reason to mind. :) And it would fit better with the pinkish colour of LN.

Finally a minor point. The transition to CDA from its forming parties might be visualised with a vertical line in stead of a diagonal one, but that can't be a standard (for other thus formed parties) because it's not always that clear. And what to do with PPR? So I suppose that won't work.

But, like I said, nice work! And sorry about being so verbose. :) DirkvdM

I see you've placed your figure, but where have you put the table? Also, the figure is way too small and therefore illegible. DirkvdM 12:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's either a huge picture or this size, I've followed the European_Parliament#Political_groups_and_parties precedent, for more information, one can click on the picture and get it in full size. The table is wholly removed, and the percentage of seats of the coalitions are listed with the Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Dutch cabinets since World War II. For more detailed information the elections xxxx suffice. C_mon 14:34, 3 January 2006

There are more than those two choices. You can set the size inside the image link. I'll do just that so you can see what I mean. I've made it rather big (too big maybe). I've also moved it down to the cabinets section because it seems more in place there. Not sure here either, though. Clicking to get full size has three problems. The first problem is that not everyone will know that they can do this. May seem lame, but there are (still) plenty such people around. The second problem is that you have to click and then move back and forth between the pic and the article. It's nicer to have them on one page. The third problem is that not all browsers (with standard settings) reduce the image to screen size. With Konqueror, for example (or older versions of IE I believe), you get full size, which in this case will extend way beyond most screens (one would need a screen size of at least 2846x1946 - the image size).

About that last bit. You've made the image rather big. There's no need for that. 800 pixels wide is just fine (which would, by the way, solve the last of the problems above). Also, saving it as gif is the right choice for vector images like this one (as I already said).

I see you've added the years, but they are evenly interspaced, which does not correspond to the actual years. I wouldn't mind fixing this myself. Do you use a specific program to make this table or is it just handywork with a general graphics application? I'd also like to know because I might want to do something similar elsewhere.

You removed my table without responding to my observations above, which is not a nice thing to do :( . By xxxx I suppose you mean the separate articles about the separate elections. But, like I said, that requires linking through all of them, and there are tens of them, depending on how far back you go. Not quite practical and it certainly doenn't give an overview. I still don't understand your objections to the table. I find it highly useful. For example, I used it to write the DS70 stub. Without it, getting this info would have been a whole lot more work. You can't read that from your figure. Which certainly has it's value, but it is always nice to have different representations of the same data for different purposes.

I see you've also removed the table of formation of the various political parties. Why is that? DirkvdM 13:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have put back the table, which was supposed to be replaced by the figure I made. I thought we had come to consensus about the table?

I had a post ready to explain what I did when I posted the figure, but without realizing it, I forgot to post it. Okay that was stupid.

I made the figure with excell but my apple was not really cooperative. That's why it isn't perfect. If you think you can make a better figure, I can mail you the data. BTW on the figure's size, I have followed the precedent set by the European Parliament. C_mon 19:51, 11 January 2006.

Right, I waited for any reactions, but as none came, I put the tables back. They has to be somewhere because they contain good information not presented anywhere else (or not in this handy form). Some people prefer different presentations, and maybe you and others don't like, let's say, mathematical presentations (or what should I call that). But others do (like me). Maybe it should go elsewhere, as I said, and I intended to look into that, but in the meantime it made most sense to have it here (way at the bottom, so it's hardly in the way). DirkvdM 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can use both, the table contains more detailed information, that cannot be easily reconstructed from the figure, the figure gives a nice overview of changes over time. However, I did some counting and in the table the sum of seats quit often does not add up (e.g. Beel II only addsup to 77 instead of 150 seats) I'll try to figure out what happened Arnoutf 15:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what is wrong with the table. The CD 1seat 1989 and 3 in 94 is missing. VVD in 1981 had 26 instead of 16,D66 mentioned twice in '73 and pvda had 34 instead of 43 seats in 56. The addition to scores below 150/100 depends on reformation, so that's only cabinet parties. Ihave corrected these typo's Arnoutf 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

representation per party 1946-

With the corrected table I recreated the figure. I used a bar chart, over the years to better reflect abrupt changes by general elections. If you think this approach improves on the already good idea by C_mon, I'll be happy to place it on the page and make changes par recommendations. Arnoutf 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I now used .png format. I don't use jpeg for such graphs as it causes blurriness, but gif only supports very few colours, which makes such a complex graph problematic to render. I would prefer a vector rendering over bitmap, but don't know which are supported and I seem to be stuck with unsupported .EMF format Arnoutf 20:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of something similar myself. Looks good. Just a few minor things. Making RKPN white makes it look like there's an error in the table. Also, it was a christian party, so it should be grouped with the other christian parties. And couldn't the election years be marked in some way? Such as a 'bold' stripe at the bottom. Or, preferably, the year. Maybe at the top. It would be handy if both the bottom and the top had the years, to facilitate reading. (And a minor point - why are the given years the '1' and '6' years, not the '0' and '5'?)

And something not so minor. I also suggested to C_mon to juxtapose left and right by putting them at the top and bottom. Now I'd like to add to that that the VVD rose as the christian parties declined, while the PvdA stayed largely the same. The present graph is rather 'jerky'. Placing the most stable party at the bottom would make the graph for the other parties more stable as well. I don't know how much work that would be, though. I'd like to alter the order in my table, but that would be a bit too much work (especially since it's just the minor parties that need rearranging), so I won't blame you if you don't follow up on this tip. DirkvdM 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

representation per party 1946-

Good points and not all equally easily corrected. I had a try at it. First the easiest, RKPN is now no longer white and with the christian block. I made this graph in Excel and that is not always as felxible As I would like. Using bar graph cannot be made to assume any value to the horizontal axis, Excel considers it categorical rather than continuous. So I made a category of each year between 46 and now and copied seat over govt spanning more than 1 year. This makes strating on any value but 46 difficult (hence the 46-51 years). I chaged the grid to 4 years as this is normal election period... Election years would be nice, but again practically difficult in excel, as they are not strictly every 4 yrs as govt fall. They can be identified by the jerky changes in seats. I shifted the seats following your idea (left-christian-liberal/right), but I am not sure whether the graph really becomes much more readable that way (see new version). Once again, any comments welcome....

By the way, although EVP was also a christian party I listed that with the left wing parties as it was one of the immediate predecesors of Groen Links Arnoutf 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work.

Readability depends on what you want to read. This version shows more clearly the constancy of the left and the development of the small left wing parties (such as an apparent change from CPN to SP) but less clearly the constancy of the small christian parties. You can't have it all (the ones in the middle will always be harder to read), but overall I like this one a bit more. And it has a more logical progression from bottom to top. One party I'm still unsure about is Christen Unie. I though that they were pretty leftwing (and so shouldn't they then be between CDA and PvdA?) but now that I've learned that the formed an alliance with SGP for the European elections I'm not so sure anymore.

I suppose I could just stick the correct years on top of it. For graphic work I use Photoshop and for that I'll have to reboot into msWindows (still hasn't been ported to Linux yet), so I'll do that a bit later. DirkvdM 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The benefit here is that the stability of left is obvious. The decline of christian parties less so. I can shift down Christen Unie (and its predecessors). I am also a bit wondering about the one issue parties that occasionally pop up (now at the top of the graph). They make reading the right wing much more difficult, but shifting down may clutter the center of the graph. Arnoutf 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving Christen Unie down is something I was just wondering about. I don't know, so do what you see fit. But the creation of CDA out of KVP, ARP and CHU could be made clearer by giving the latter three a colour that is closer to that of CDA, maybe even almost (!) indistinguishable (a problem here might be that people see colours differently). Especially the colour of ARP is too different now. The order in the right sidebar should then be the same as in the graph (as it is now), but I'd move CDA to the top, as with the other newly formed parties (VVD out of PvdV and GroenLinks also with the constituent parties below it). The colouring of the small christian parties could also be adapted a bit more to that. With their present purplish look they seem to be more of an extension of VDD/D66.

All this if you want to of course. I could keep on nitpicking. :) DirkvdM 06:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well better to get it as good as possible, now we're in the flow on this. I 'll see what I can do, will be in a few days though. I may have to edit outside Excel (but only after I get the order right) because Excel only allows a very limited color palette. Arnoutf 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I completed the new figure and placed it in the article. The comments have helped improve it, if you feel the need for further improvement do not hesitate to post follow up comments, I will see how to use them. Arnoutf 13:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good. The vertical lines are quite helpful. Now I suddenly notice that the change from 100 to 150 seats had an impact on the percentage-wise distribution of seats (which makes perfect sense). Calling those small parties at the top one-issue parties is a very tactical move (are you perchance a politician? :) ). Calling them extreme right wing, as the graph suggests and is indeed largely the case, would place LPF in that category, not entirely unjustly, but it would upset some people. However, what if PvdD gets a seat in parliament? Would they then also have to be placed there? Well, we can always hope that will not happen. :) What do you mean by "a governmental crisis, which is often followed by new elections"? Don't elections always follow?

Nothing needs to be done about the graph itself anymore now. It's perfect (apart from insoluble problems as where to put D66). What remains is the text around it. Something I only now notice is the misspelling at the top ('parlaiment'). The dates at the bottom I already mentioned. And maybe the past parties can go to the left, making the present parties a bit more obvious. The percentages can go (or maybe be made a lot smaller). But I can do all that if I find the time for it (and I have to reboot to msWindows to use Photoshop).

Well done. DirkvdM 08:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I 'm not a politician but a scientist and that sometimes feels almost the same regarding careful statements ;-) There seem to be a few 1950/60's cabinets that were reformed into a different coalition after a crisis, that has not happened or a while, but is in principle still possible, so I would keep that option open. Of course the text is all first draft. Arnoutf 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW, that's a very cool figure! Remove mine put this one up!

C mon 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you've distinguished between present and old parties. Not in the way I intended, but this is better, I suppose. One more nitpick: Just like I did in the table, you've shortened Christen Unie to ChU. But that could be confused with the late CHU. Maybe this should be changed to either ChrU or, simpler, CU. Or maybe Christen Unie and Groen Links should be spelled out completely. At least in the graph, because there's room for that now. DirkvdM 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I ll see hat I can do. Part of my moving of old parties was also pragmatic as this was easiest to produce ;-) Arnoutf 14:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to separate page?

And now for something different (or rather, picking up the previous discussion). The article is getting a bit long, which is not a problem in itself, but it would make sense to move the 'Seats per party' and 'Cabinets since WWII' sections to a separate page. Or maybe to Elections in the Netherlands. I don't think that article will get much bigger, whereas there is plenty of room for expansion in this article because there should be more on the Provincial and Municipal levels (I've already made a first start with that under 'Administrative Division'). Arnout's figure should stay in this article, though (as well), with a short explanation and a reference to wherever the tables go. DirkvdM 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'most right-wing cabinet'

Here we go again... We dropped the phrase " the most right wing cabinet since World War II" for the present cabinet from the Netherlands-page, now it returns here, and stronger.

Now it is "one of the most right wing cabinets in Dutch history." So this cabinet has to compete with Hitlers allies? Or the cabinets in the nineteenth century? THis is ridiculous! BertvdM placed this nonsense, so he may rephrase his crap.Jeff5102 07:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not neutral to say most right wing cabinet. Electionworld 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it doesn't. :) It says "one of the most right wing cabinets in Dutch history." Comparing it to 19th century cabinets is indeed rather tricky because one should interpret such a term in the spirit of the times. So it could be changed to "...since WWII" (in which case "one of" might be dropped). Or "...since the introduction of general suffrage". Which was in 1917, so in which case "one of" can't be dropped, although a comparison with the wartime cabinet is a bit silly since that was not elected, but strictly speaking the reasoning still stands. DirkvdM 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

still seems a bit over the top, many of 1900-1940 cabinets are very right wing; as well as several of the 1945-2000 cabinets (van Agt-Wiegel left?). I think the point is worth to be made, but a more careful phrase especially about history may be in place. 'which exhibits a clear right wing agenda' Arnoutf 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously a right-wing cabinet, I don't think anyone will doubt that, so there's no reason to say that in such a roundabout way (I prefer very direct language, maybe because I'm Dutch). But the question is how it compares with other cabinets. Like I said, you have to interprest cabinets in terms of their own time. Of course the old cabinets were right wing by today's standards because the whole world was. But you also have to realise that as far as moving to the left is concerned, there was much more room to do that in those days, so in that sense the early cabinets were more leftwing than a modern cabinbet could ever be even if it wanted to. General suffrage (not dependent on income (!) and also for women) and even democracy itself are things we take for granted now, but they had to be fought for. And that was done in those days. An equally strong move to the left would now give us a Socialist State. And indeed, that almost happened in 1918. Or so Pieter Jelles Troelstra thought. The very idea that that was conceivable now seems absurd. But those were times of socialist revolution and worker's emancipation. And the following cabinets may have been right wing in the political spectrum of the day, but apparently it gave them such a fright that they started left wing reforms (after all, look at what happened in Russia in 1917 when reforms didn't come there).

After that, the VVD started to rise and in the last two decades there has been even more of a move to the right, not just politically, but in the way people think. But even in these right wing times this cabinet is considered too rightwing. So saying we now have one of the most right wing cabinets ever might even be an understatement.

What do you mean by "van Agt-Wiegel left?" It certainly wasn't, and it may even have been a more right-wing cabinet (I can't really say), but that is not disputed by the statement.

Oh, and a possible cause of confusion is that the early 20th century cabinets were conservative (christian). But that is not (necessarily) the same as right wing. The conservative wing is represented by CDA, but, as I said, VVD has risen as something different; not based on a conservative 'zuil' but based on economics. That's true right wing. Nothing new, but more powerful now than it has been for a long time. DirkvdM 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the statement 'most right wing' cannot be defended, for exactly the same arguments used to defend it. DirkvdM is competely right in stating that right-left wing are not absolute markers, but should be interpreted within their times. DirkvdM also (correctly) notices that the public opinion in the Netherlands has shifted to the right; which in my view would mitigate the 'rightness' of the current cabinet. At least this shift in public opinion makes comparison very difficult. With such a difficult comparison, I would prefer to make weaker statements than using phrases like "one of the most", in spite of the possibility that these may be justified, i.e. I would prefer to err on the safe side. Perhaps I have grown to be overcautious in using direct language in English, as I, being Dutch myself, have learned from discussions with English colleagues that the direct way Dutch speak about issues is often considered too blunt by them. (PS Sorry that I changed the text before this was settled, I'll leave the revert) Arnoutf 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that one should not measure the left/right-ness of a cabinet by the left/right-ness of the status quo but by the change in left/right-ness. Late 19th century cabinets were rightwing by modern standards but moved to the left within the framework of their status quo, and that makes them leftwing (overall during that period, I'm not speaking of specific cabinets). ironically, this move was possible because the status quo was so rightwing. And because of this there was room to move to the left for almost a whole century, culminating in the 1970's. Then a move to the right started (that previous century had created plenty of room to move in that direction). A comparison with the 1980's makes the statement a bit problematic, although I still think one could say that Balkenende II is the more rightwing. However, once again, the claim in the article is not that it is the most rightwing cabinet but one of the most rightwing cabinets. And I think that is indubitably true (my dear Watson :) ). I'll make the statement a bit more precise.

One more consideration (although that need not be integrated in the text). The room to move to the left was created in the middle of the 19th century by the industrialisation and urbanisation, which created poverty because the long standing traditional way society was organised wasn't fit to handle this new situation. Poverty was dealt with by the church, which had always worked fine, so the state didn't need to interfere. But now there was so many poor that the church could not deal with it. So government had to step in and was forced to be leftwing to avoid disaster (the kind that happened in Russia half a century later, albeit through completely different causes). But they didn't consciously conjure up the problem, the gulf between rich and poor just happened beyond their control. So one can't even say those were right-wing cabinets.

As you can see, I'm placing the present cabinet in the political developments over a rather long period, which is my preferred way of looking at things - from a distance, trying to see the big picture. DirkvdM 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So I guess you consider Wim Kok, who reformed the WAO-rules, and made huge cuts in education-exppenses during the first purple cabinet, as a right-wing politician? ;)Jeff5102 09:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You gave that one a smiley (or is that a 'winkey'), but there's a serious undertone, so I'll react anyway. Of course Kok was just the premier. It's the cabinet that counts and that was fairly rightwing for a cabinet with the PvdA in it. But PvdA was accused of having become too rightwing and it was a cabinet with VDD in stead of CDA, which partly explains that. And those were not the only things they did. Overall, it somewhat rightwing, but nowhere near as rightwing as Balkenende II. DirkvdM 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I dont understand why you keep on instinsting on your "one of the most right-wing cabinets"-claim. It was already discussed in talk:Netherlands#Left_wing_vs_Right_Wing_and_.27political.27_murders, and in that discussion, you stood alone in your claims as well. And as a secomd point, I believe that the word 'swing' already means 'a dramatic change', so 'a dramatic swing' should overdo the facts.Jeff5102 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from us two there were only two other participants in that bit of the discussion, I didn't stand all alone and, most importantly (sigh, how often do I have to repeat this) that was about the most right-wing cabinet, where this is about one of the most right wing cabinets. I've already acknowledged that the former was too strong. Then I changed it from 'in Dutch history' to 'since the end of the 19th century'. Which seemed like a reasonable and realistic toning down of the statement. You then changed it to "one of the more right wing cabinets in recent history". Apart from 'recent' being too vague, that says little more than that it is a right wing cabinet, which is simply too weakly put. As to the other point; Googling "dramatic swing" gives 18000 results, so it's not uncommon English. DirkvdM 07:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lower house - Second chamber

The tweede kamer is referred to as both lower house and second chamber in this article. We should choose for one term to avoid confusion. Arnoutf 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd say 'lower house' may be helpful for British readers because it's a term used in Great Britain, but precisley for that reason it's less appropriate here. The correct term is 'Tweede Kamer'. That would translate well as 'Second Chamber', but because the Dutch term is also the title of the article about it. So I'm not sure, but I've taken the liberty to change it all to 'Second Chamber'. That seems more in accordance with naming in Wikipedia. DirkvdM 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The institutions like to present themselves as the Senate (Eerste Kamer) and House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), see [1] and [2]. Intangible 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind that. Seems a good idea taking up their own prepared names, (after a short introduction of course). My original issue was mainly about consisteny. Arnoutf 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is the most important thing. But those two links give me the impression of being more for the purpose of explaining things to foreigners in for them more understandable terms. A better source would be where the chambers talk about themselves in English for the purpose of foreign relations. In other words, what does, say, Balkenende call the various parts of the Dutch political system when he addresses an international crowd (of politicians?). When does he ever refer to them in such a situation? I thought about looking the Dutch system up in an English newspaper, but I'd rather have a source that is more international. What about the UN. With what terminology do the Dutch present themselves there? All I found is this, which uses the 'chambers' version.

By the way, I also found this, which contains the sentence "Given the consensus-based nature of the Dutch Government, elections do not usually result in any drastic change in foreign or domestic policy". Look familiar? DirkvdM 08:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List of terms

While reading & writing articles about dutch politics, I have had some problems with terms that need no explanation for a dutch person, but make no sense in English, and are rather hard to translate, and are thus translated differently on different pages or are left untranslated (and explained in brackets). Most important are:

• Lijsttrekker: "person who heads the electoral list of a party" translated as 'Party Leader' and 'Head of the party's election list'
• Formateur: "person who is responsible for the formation of a cabinet"
• Informateur: "person who leads the formal talks that lead to the formation of a cabinet"

And may be:

• Lijstverbinding: "a coalition between to parties to obtain more remainder seats"
• Schoolstrijd: "struggle of religious party to securing equal financing for religious schools'
• Gedoogbeleid: "a policy of toleration of government of some illegal practizes, most including victimsless crime"
• Staatssecretaris: "junior minister"
• Eenmansfractie: "one man party"

What I want to propose are two things:

• come to some consensus about what a good translation of these terms would be and try to change all these terms to the right translation
• make a list of these terms with explanation, to which these terms could link (so they don't need explanation on each page). I propose a list of terms in Politics of the Netherlands or something. Alternatively we could list them on the politics of the Netherlands page (which is getting rather large). Or make seperate articles, which would create a lot of stubs.

Any thoughts? C mon 13:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to create some consensus, so consistency is reached about the English translation of Dutch political terms. Too bad there is a lot of disambiguity from official Dutch institutions too. The Tweede Kamer likes to call itself House of Representatives, while the Department of State calls it the Lower House, for example. Intangible 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good question to a native English speaker. As there may be short phrases in English that capture the exact meaning of which we Dutchies don't know. Oh nd by the way, we decided to rename Tweede Kamer -> Second Chamber on this page (see discussion on top of this one) Arnoutf 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just came from the chambers discussion above and now more terminology. As for the separate article for the terminology, I'd say first make a list and then see if it is big enough for a a separate article. If not, just add it to this article, so all the related info is right next to it if it is linked to from elsewhere.

As for the specific translations, I'll refrain from giving any because it would be better to use an English-language source for it. And preferably the same one for all words. To avoid partiality towards the terminology of one country I propose an international political organisation as a source. And the UN seems the obvious one. Above I found this text, which has several terms in it. Maybe you guys can find more such pages, about more specific issues, preferably a consistent set of articles. DirkvdM 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources lead to a consistent translation. I propose instead of translating these terms keeping them in dutch, but make them clickable, linking them to the list I proposed. That would make the most sense. Wouldn't it? C mon 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean to link each separate word to the list, then I'd say no. A link should be to an article about the word. But it would make sense to make such a list (and not just political terms, but also the parties) and then link to it once from every Netherlands politics page. And some words are too hard to translate, so I'd say keep 'gedoogbeleid' in Dutch with an explanation the first time it is mentioned on each page until maybe someone else comes along with a better alternative. I know that's what you wanted to avoid, but it makes most sense to me. DirkvdM 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no rule saying that you can't link to parts of the article. A good example is "euthanasia in the Netherlands". Second, what I really mind and want to solve, is the repeating of obvious information in dutch wikipedia articles. Sentences like: "Because of the multi-party system, this party has always had to cooperate with others" are superfluous. The way to solve this is linking stuff. And that for me is the charm for wikipedia. If you know a term, you need no explanation. If you don't know a term a new world of information can open by a simple click. C mon 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of sort of a dictionary listing, but I now understand you want a list of typical Dutch topics with an extensive explanation. We could have both. Whenever there is such an extensive explanation it does indeed make sense to link to that section whenever a word is first mentioned in an article. But then too, it makes sense to give a short explanation of the term. Just the first time it's mentioned. Some people will read several or even all Dutch politics articles, and for them repeated explanations can grow a bit tiresome. But some will read just one article (especially in the case of this article and the general Netherlands article). And for them it would be better to not have to follow a link too often. This article could also have a list of terms with translations, waht I was thinking of.

But ultimately, this discussion works better if we just start doing it, so we know what specifically we are talking about. And that starts with making that article. And how that will turn out is also something we have to see through trying. Some things are better explained here. And maybe the whole list can go into this article, like I said. But then the rest of this article would have to be shortened, such as by putting some other stuff in other or new articles, like the cabinets and seats section and the historical overview (which has now gone beyond an overview).

I've made a start, based on a text on Dutch politics (in Dutch). This has led to two lists, one fro the main text and one from an alphabetical list of terminology at the end.

I have two goals in mind. One is to make the list of explanations that you intended (especially where no translation is possible) and the other is to agree on one translation. I won't make that distinction yet, we can later split the lists (and/or merge - we'll see).

Please add terms as you think of them. If you think of an alternative then add it first. Then we can talk about it and ultimately end up with just one English term in each row (hopefully). Or if you disagree with a translation you might cross it out.

This is as yet a mess. I don't yet know if we should have a topical or an alphabetical list. Or both. We can also have different lists for differnt purposes. I've also included words for which I would like a translation, but which do not need to go in any ultimate table once we have it. The ones with multiple translations that we need to select between could go in a list at the top of every Dutch politics talk page for reference (or maybe those other ones can go in there as well).

Maybe this should be partly moved to a new article, like you proposed.Except that I'd name that Politics of the Netherlands (terminology). I wrote a article about the terminology surrounding the British Isles and after some discussion the name British Isles (terminology) was agreed upon. This seems rather in keeping with the naming in Wikipedia.

These lists could also be used as a checklist to see if everything has been covered. For that, however, it is not really complete enough because I have left out the terms that have obvious translations.

Maybe the list could include all political terms, effectively creating a Dutch-English political dictionary. But that seems a bit too ambitious for now. :) Which makes me think. Is there such a list? Or a book? That would make thongs a lot easier.

I have not yet included the political parties. That could become a separate list (in this article). DirkvdM 10:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started to fill in stuff with the help of the eurodicautom. I've also included any definitions of the terms I found there. Where there is more than one choice for a word, I'd prefer English English over American English because that is the most used language in the articles about the Netherlands, as far as I've seen. Actually, I'd like to 'hunt down' all deviations from that and 'correct' them. I want to read them all, so I might as well do that while I'm at it. DirkvdM 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Great List! I've made some changes, basing my self on Governance and Politics of the Netherlands (Andeweg & Irwin) and Comparative Government and Politics (Hague & Harrop) both authoritive sources (and obligatory reading for Political Science students). I have some problems with terms that a) have their own wikipedia pages (initiative, turnout) and b) are not specifically dutch (the list is ment to explain specific, dutch political terms like informateur). But nonetheless, great work! C mon 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't yet know what this will lead to. It goes beyond your intentions, but depending on what we get we can always trim it in different ways. Making a complete Dutch-English political dictionary woud be a bit too much maybe (would that fit in the Wikipedia 'philosophy'? Or else a different project?) and a short list of most used terms would certinly be handy. But for now I suggest not shortening it yet.

Because Wikipedia is horribly unresponsive today I won't work on it now. Maybe tomorrow (maybe tonight, it's such a wonderful feeling.....but that's a different tune :) ). DirkvdM 15:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to put some effort in it and have created (a provisional version of) Politics of the Netherlands (terminology), I've taken over most terms DirkvdM listed, with translations, explanations, examples and links. C mon 07:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good move. I was already thinking about doing this myself. I see you didn't use my table format, which makes more sense. I also agree with making it an alphabetical list with internal links. Maybe one day we could also make a thematical list, but we certainly need this version. I've started with some editing, partly in the formating. I'll await your (or anyone else's) responses before I continue (and anyway I'm going to eat now - that's the real excuse :) ).

I suggest moving this entire section to that talk page, with a short description and link here, like

A posting here led to the creation of the Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) article. This posting has been moved to that talk page.

At the very least my table makes more sense there. DirkvdM 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone if the tables on the Politics of the Netherlands are moved there so we can have discussions here without having to scroll down infinitely? C mon 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the table but left the discussion. C mon 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Questioning the "perfect form of proportional representation"

I question the appropriate use of the reference supposedly supporting the claim that "The political system delivers Full Representation and is by many [1] considered to be the perfect form of proportional representation." [3]

From my interpretation, that reference ranks the Netherlands as #1 in granting civil and political liberties, not necessarily as being the "perfect form of...representation." I might make the claim that the Netherlands has, arguably, the most open political process with the least restrictive access to that process compared to other democracies (at least as of 2001, the date of that reference). But I would not feel comfortable claiming that the process itself is "perfect." Perfection implies there is no room for improvement, which is contrary to the principles of a true democracy. Democracies evolve and improve over time in response to changing social and political environments.

Is there a more accurate reference to support the editor's claim, or is there a better way to state what the editor is trying to assert?

Philosophically speaking your right, there is always room to improve democracy etc. But practically, the Netherlands has the most proportional system in the world for more information about that see for instance Arend Lijphart's "Patterns of Democracy". The Netherland's elections system is uniquily proportional in the world for three reasons:

1) the Netherlands uses Proportional Representation;

2) there is no threshold;

3) votes are allotted astough then Netherlands is one electoral region, no seats are lost because a party can't make the threshold created by multi-member districts.

This if a party gains .67% of votes it gets a seat. According to Lijphart the disproportionality in the Netherlands is only 1.30% compared to France 21.08%. This means that only 1.3% of the dutch votes is 'wasted', while 21% of the French are.

There are off course some issues with the electoral system and its proportionality, most focus on the remainders seats and the openness of the party list. Finally proportional representation does not make a perfect democracy, and has many problems of its own.

I hope this clarifies! C mon 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:FredrickS included this portion, so that user will have to backup that claim. Nonetheless, the sound of 'perfect form of proportional representation' for me begs the question if voting itself is warranted though. There is an easy claim to be made that democracy in itself is just mob rule, so then 'perfect form of proportional representation' becomes a little bit bizarre. Intangible 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, I'm simply questioning the semantics of the "perfect form of proportional representation" claim. If it's a "perfect form" then, are there other forms? Examples? Also, may I recommend adding the Lijphart reference? In my mind it is a better reference to support the claim than the original reference. More to the point, is there a more accurate way to rephrase that claim?

Lay out

I've spend some time making a new layout for this page, which would make the page simpler, shorter and more easy to read. The general idea is, that like the page Netherlands this page would just consist of summaries of subpages. Like the section on dutch politics on the Netherlands article, is just a summary of this page. The list of institutions and phenomena this page would have summaries of would be quite large, including the dutch parties & party-system, parliament, cabinet, the Prime Minister, the Queen, but also dutch political history and political culture. It would make the page more structured and to make the page less huge, without loosing information.

I have the proposal here User:C_mon/Politics_of_the_Netherlands. The (...) denote parts of the texts that need elaboration. If any one could take a critical look at it, help with filling in missing information, and with making and standardizing the subpages, it would be greatly appreciated. If there is any sign of your interest in this radical revision, I will start editing my subpage, making it less of a template and more of a wiki, your help is greatly appreciated. I hope to implement these changes after a week of deliberations, and a week of revision of the templates and the subpages. - C mon 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have finished the radical revision of this page now. I implore any-one to take a look at it. If there are no negative reactions to my proposal (see User:C_mon/Politics_of_the_Netherlands) I will make the change after one week. --C mon 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it actually. One small addition: you could make that wiki-link for "list system" refer to Party-list_proportional_representation.

Confusing article

I've just modified the short paragraphs on the Monarchy and Cabinet here, but I am reluctant to stick my neck out too far due to my lack of knowledge of the Dutch political system, which seems to have greater complexity than most and is certainly harder to understand than that in my own country. This article really needs attention by an expert, or at the very least an extensive copy edit to remove all of the grammatical errors. Tozznok 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the 'confusing' parts?

BTW, the politics of another countries is always difficult to understand (I still haven't figured out what the Isle of Man exactly is constitutionally). C mon 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just read through the entire article with Tozznok's comments in the back of my head and asked myself: would I understand Dutch politics as a foreigner with maybe a slight interest in politics? The honest answer is NO. Although all the correct information is there, the article is not properly ordered and the short deviations on political history make it even less intelligible. I am actually a professional expert on this topic, so I will try to review the article as a whole in the coming days. Like I said, all the correct info is there, so I will not make any significant cuts without consulting. The 'political history'-section bugs me a bit though. I might want to integrate that part into History of the Netherlands: modern history (1900-present), but I will check how this is done in other politics-of-country-X articles. Which reminds me, is there something like a guideline for writing such articles?--Dengo 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article! I made the radical revision two months ago, after having the new version posted somewhere for possible replies for two months. I wanted people to participate in it earlier but there was no reply.

There aren't any guidelines for such articles, but I would implore you not to merge the history section with a history article (and remove it from the article) because the article will become overly institutionalist from it. My personal opinion is that most of the politics of country articles focus to much on the current institutions and have no eye for change or political cultre. Politics is more than a set of institutions.

C mon 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll keep the political history, but I think it is unavoidable to make the article a little more institutionalist. Maybe it's a good idea to set up a separate section with a small history on the practical development of the position of institutions. (For instance the position of the SER, CPB and prime minister have changed radically over the years, without an actual change in the constitution). I'm working on it now, but depending on how busy my dayjob is, it will take a couple of days. --Dengo 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Specialist histories (SER, CPB) can better be included in their respective articles. Because the article made here is a summary of those articles, so any information should first be included there. C mon 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have another point - ministerial titles, such as Prime Minister, are always capitalised in English. I'm sure this is the case with the Dutch Government also, but some of the English terms are lower-case in this and related articles. I have no idea about capitalisation of nouns in the Dutch language, but I'm sure that when the Dutch cabinet is referred to in English the capitals are used. Am I wrong? Tozznok 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch don't capitalize their titles at all. C mon 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope Dutch are very, very sparingly users of capitals. Only personal and country names (in Dutch), so months and functions, or academic titles (dr., ir., drs., mr.) in Dutch are not capitalized. So forgive us Dutchies that we do not always follow English capitalization rules Arnoutf 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with my two fellow countrymen, but Tozznok does have a point: when using the English terms, we should capitalise. There is one exception to the rule by the way: Hare Majesteit de Koningin (Her Majesty the Queen) - for obvious reasons--Dengo 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, just tried to explain that this part of the confusion is due to Denglish (Dutch-English..) and should be treated as typo rather than as a deliberate statement. Arnoutf 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let anyone interested know: I am very much working on a revision of the entire article, but it's quite a job while I have little time left over from work right now. Please be patient ... --Dengo 11:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

revision

I just oploaded my revision of the entire article. EDits have mostly taken place in the 'constitution' and 'institutions' sections. The rest I have basically left alone. I invite anyone to comment, criticise or edit my version.

I still have some problems with this version, but I did not want to be too radical without consulting my fellow editors first:

• As User:C_mon correctly pointed out, this article is supposed to be a summary of larger underlying articles. For large sections, this is not the case (yet).
• Related to this: I still feel that the political history section (although quite well written, partly by me ;-)) is a little out of place. In addition, it refers to History of the Netherlands: modern history (1900-present), which actually has less info on the same period.
• The graphs and tables. They are beautiful, but a)very detailed, b)very large and c)possibly out of place. Shouldn't they be moved to, for instance, Tweede Kamer?--Dengo 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay it looks better. But to be honest I don't think this is the solution to the supposed unclarity. There are a few things which I want to change. I'll list them all, instead of editing them out immediately, so any one can prevent me from making the changes (I'll make the edits tomorrrow):

1. reinsert a reference to consociational state in the introduction, it is the politicological classification of the Netherlands.
2. simplify the constitution section, by moving information there. The entire history will be moved leaving only its current workings.
3. remove the section about the constitutional role of the monarch (what would happen if she wouldn't sign a law?) this is speculation, not fact
4. decapitalize collegial governance
5. point out that cabinets don't need an investiture vote
6. rename the parliament section estates general; that's its name
7. remove the second section on the prime minister, because it is not true (the right year isn't 1960 but 1900)
8. remove the sections about PBOs in the SER part because it is confusing
9. rearrange the institutions section so that the judicial system comes before the parties and the SER, judicial system is mentioned in the constitution parties aren't from a purely legal perspective the judicial system is more important than parties
10. merge the sections on PvdA, CDA and VVD into one section (ie remove the breaks because now it looks to spacy)
11. add subsection headers to historical discussion (1900-1966, 1966-1994, 1994-now)

it's quite a list.

On your three points

1. Therefore we need to expand the underlying articles
2. We need to merge this section with the 1900-now history article, decide what information is relevant enough and what isn't; may be set a word limit on the section in this article to ensure its brevity
3. Most politics of ... article only consist out of such schedules, may be we can move them around so they are not in one pack (move the historical graph down) for instance; and merge the TK and EK in one figure. But we need to keep this informatio in

May be we can devide the work load of the Politics of the Netherlands 2.0 (ie the expansion of the underlying articles) between us, or make a to do list, so other people can join and we have an overview of what needs to happen, in order to make it happen. -C mon 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In general I believe I agree with most of your points. It basically comes down to a shorter text that is more to the point and leaves details to the underlying articles. For instance collegial governance is quite essential to the practice of decision making within the cabinet, I believe it will suffice to deal with it in its own article. The same goes for the power of the Queen. I believe her 'soft power' is pretty essential, but need not be dealt with in a general summary.

As for the editorial suggestions, I propose you make them, since I have no strong feelings about them, apart from:

1. the official translation of Staten Generaal is States General. check the site of the Foreign Office
2. it is true that cabinets do not require an investiture vote, but the Second Chamber does have the opportunity to vote off the cabinet in its first debate on the cabinet declaration. The last time this happened was in 1939, but we came close with the investiture of the current B-III cabinet. Anyway, I feel that it sounds weird to foreigners to point out this fact explicitly.

EDIT: I just checked and there is actually a vote on the declaration before cabinet can start governing, which is basically an investiture vote, is it not?

I like your structured approach of the entire Politics program. I say we start by compiling a list and then decide on further steps. Having said that, anyone reading this is of course invited to think and discuss along. --Dengo 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Turning the tables

There are now four tables giving an overview of election results and coalitions:

1. Template:List of cabinets of the Netherlands
2. Historic composition of the Tweede Kamer
3. List of cabinets of the Netherlands
4. List of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands

That is too much. Note that the first two are almost identical and the recent addition of the second one brought this issue up. See also the talk page there.
I propose to reduce these to two tables, one focusing on the cabinets and one focusing on the second chamber. This, however, does not mean that info in one table can not also be included in the other. The first table is at present the most complete one, showing:

• the parties (horizontal axis)
• the election year (if any)
• the change in seats
• the cabinet
• the seats per party (and whether a party partook in the elections in the first place and if there were elections at all)
• the parties in government
• the share the combined govenment parties have in parliament
• additional info outside the table on the merging of parties

The second table has most of the most important info, but does not have room for the cabinet names and links.
The third table shows the precise dates, the prime minister and the status. The fourth list doesn't add much to that, just whether the PM was from a 'consevative' or 'liberal' party (whatever that means). I propose to merge these two tables (ie add that last column to the cabinets-table).
But most importantly, I propose to merge the first two tables. The issue there is not the composition and content of the tables, but the layout. The first one should be expanded with the info in the second one and might also have the last cabinets split off in a separate table. The major issue is which way around the axes should be, and I prefer the method of the first table because that gives the option of naming and linking to the cabinets, which seems rather useful. DirkvdM 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a clear difference in strategy between DirkvdM and myself, while Dirk wants to collapse all possible information in one table, I prefer to keep things separate, legible and accessible from multiple points. Allow me give three arguments, why I don't think we need one table representing every thing but instead should use multiple tables representing partial information:

1. legibility: I have claimed on multiple places that DirkvdM's "template" is clunky, not legible, not beautiful and not professional, because quite honestly it is a mess, a chaos: it tries to give too much information into limit space.
2. logic: the things the template is trying to connect are independent of each other, as it includes both prime ministers, cabinets, election results, Tweede Kamer composition, party formation and government composition, while these can and have changed independent of eachother. Dutch politics is too complex to be collapse in one figure
3. purpose: think of our readers, we are not writing for people who want to solve puzzles, like the template to gain access to unlimited information, but for a) people who want to look one simple fact up, b) people who want to learn about a specific country. For the first group certainly multiple lists are more useful as it allows them to find the same information from different paths; for the second group multiple articles and lists are also useful, because they can choose what piece information they want, instead of being loaded by all information at the same time.

And finally consider some precedents on wikipedia:

1. Consider this article. It does not try to talk one through all the politics in the Netherlands, but instead serves as an overview and a map of all different articles. Likewise we should not pursue on big template, but instead small, legible and clear cut tables.
2. Consider other countries on wikipedia, do they have one big article for all their presidents, prime ministers, cabinet and parliament? Or do they have multiple lists?
3. Consider the Dutch wikipedia, where I copied most of tables from, do they, where readers can be expected to know more of Dutch politics, throw everything into one big template?
4. Consider the individual parties articles, like VVD, in which similar information is also repeated, why? Because this allows people to get the information they want, fast, simple and easy.

What I propose is not to use DirkvdM's template, because use the three simpler, clearer and more accessible tables, all linked to specific articles (cabinet, prime minister and Tweede Kamer).

And sorry for attacking your 'baby', DirkvdM, but "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly do not submit it"

C mon 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me restate that the major issue here is the orientation of the axes. For the rest it's a matter of what info goes into the table.

1. Legibility: I still don't get why the old table ('my table') is unprofessional and clunky. Apart from the axes, the tables only differ marginally.
2. Logic: The table does not include the PM, as indeed it shouldn't. Nor does it mention the formation (unless you mean the government composition, but you already mentioned that). And 'election results' and 'Tweede Kamer composition' are also the same. (Using the same argument several times doesn't make it stronger. :) .) It does include the things I listed here-above, which most certainly have to do with each other. The complications you mention are few and all included in the list, in a few lines. Not complicated at all. Give the readers some credit. It's just about the seven caretaker cabinets since WWII and your table excludes those, which I consider a (misleading?) flaw.
3. Purpose: like I said, give the readers some credit. But better, let's see if others find my table confusing too.

Indeed, standardisation is a good idea, but different countries have different political systems, so that might be difficult. As for that third argument, I could also turn that around and say that the Dutch Wikipedia shoud adapt to the Dutch one. You just beat me to that. :) And I don't get the VVD-argument.

Maybe there is a use for both small tables and big tables. The former could be palced inside articles and the latter then linked to, for those who want more info. I certainly prefer putting as much info in one table as is workable. And remember, this is an encyclopedia. It is written for people with a bit of intelligence. Or at least it should accommodate them. (If you want to fight that, just have a look at the physics articles before you start here.)

Anyway, the first issue we should resolve here is what orientation the axes should have, part of which is to do with whether links to the cabinets are useful in the table. Anyone else got any ideas on that? DirkvdM 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't care about the orientation of the axis, but scientific standard procedure tends to favour my orientation, as the indepent variable is on the horizontal axis and the dependent variable is on the vertical one.

Legibility, the template also involves number of seats changed in the election and percentage of seat held by the government, limited information on the formation of parties, and includes the dates of the formation of the cabinets and not of the elections, That's additional information viz. the table, which complicates the template. It equates the holding of an election to the formation of a new cabinet, this is mistaken, for instance. The table now implies that elections were held in 1973, because that's a seat change can be seen, while the elections were held in 1972.

Logic: you yourself point this out in the syntax of your template "from original text: den Uyl: D'66 went down from 6 to 5 seats in '76

I don't know what I meant here" this is because a member of D66, G. Nooteboom (on parlement.com), left his parliamentary party. The same is true for Wilders leaving the VVD and the other one man parties between the formation of Balkenende I and Balkenende II.

Purpose, giving readers credit or not is not the question, it is approaching the way they use wikipedia: it is means to easily have access to information, which is better done by repeating information in multiple tables.

BTW the template is also riddled with mistakes, f.i. it currently implies that the VVD had no seats in parliament between 1965 and 1966.

But I'm certainly also interested what third parties, think. C mon 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The orientation of the axes is the major difference between the tables, because that determines whether there is room to mention (and link to) the cabinets. We can always 'negotiate' about the actual content later. :) DirkvdM 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

DirkvdM, it appears we are gridlocked: it's just the two of us and we can not agree, I propose we seek some kind of resolution of this dispute, by involving third parties. Propose the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion seems the most logical route. Do you agree? C mon 11:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, do you mean to request to delete the old table? Or do you mean to put it in an article in stead of a template? Anyway, that's too specific right now. Let's first get opinions on which table is best. And for what. We can keep both tables. (Note that I changed my position on this) Why couldn't our ideas/tables live side by side? Different strokes for different folks. The only remaining question would then be which one goes where. Of course, they don't have to stay the way they are. Let's ask some others which orientation seems best to them and what info it should contain, based on the second list above (or more?). And then there is the question which table should go where. In an article of its own or in one or more of the following articles:

• Politics of the Netherlands
• Cabinet of the Netherlands
  • List of cabinets of the Netherlands *
• Tweede Kamer
  • Historic composition of the Tweede Kamer (where 'your' list is now)
• Elections in the Netherlands (where my list is now)

*Ah, I see you've expanded that, after deleting the link to the template. Btw, you're not being very consistent in what you regard as relevant info ([4]) :)

And then finally there is the question if all abovementioned tables should be kept or if they should be merged. I suggest to ask people who are into politics, so I asked at the talk page of that article. DirkvdM 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to each of your 'musings' separately:

• Deleting a template means removing a template from wikipedia in this case your Template:List of cabinets of the Netherlands.
• Peaceful coexistence. I could have lived with that, if it was not for the fact that you convinced me of the fact that the template and the tables are extremely similar. Furthermore: where would the tempate go?
  • Politics of the Netherlands is a summary article that needs a limited number of tables and is not the place for such detailed historic information.
  • Cabinet of the Netherlands, has List of Cabinets of the Netherlands, which should not concern the composition of the Tweede Kamer
  • Tweede Kamer has historic composition of the Tweede Kamer, and should not need your information of cabinets
  • Elections of the Netherlands has a list to historic composition of the Tweede Kamer as well; furthermore information about cabinets seems quite irrelevant here.
• Yes I have worked on "my" tables as well, honestly, I work best in competition.
• If we both get people who are into politics, we'll just create two factions, because we'll both try to get supporters for our own position. Being proposing it for deletion instead, we will get contributors to respond to the proposal instead to our invitation: it is the most open process and it will also produce a binding solution.

C mon 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're being a bit hypocritical when you say you could have lived with peaceful coexistence because you kept on (re)moving my table. I never touched yours. But let's not bicker and try to resolve this. I don't get that last sentence. But that doesn't matter anyway because the amount of text here will probably already scare third parties away anyway. So let me 'muse' a bit more.

I included 'politics of the Netherlands' just to make the list complete, but now I think that is precisely the right place because it gives an overview of the politics of the Netherlands, which is indeed what that article is about. It would then have to go to the final section 'political history'. But a better solution would be to make that a separate article. I don't know about politics articles, but it is normal for countrey articles to start with a history section. We could do that here too, with a shorter historic intro (say half of what is there now) and then expand the separate history article. My table could then go there, maybe split up for the different periods, but that's a detail. And it can then just reside there, in stead of in a template. The only reason for a template is the ability to place it in different articles, and there seems to be no need for that.

I'd be happy to work on that. I want to delve into the subject of Dutch political history a bit more anyway. DirkvdM 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into calling people names will we?
Personally I think it is quite pointless to write an article about Dutch political history if there already is an article about History of the Netherlands: modern history (1900-present), which mainly focuses on political events. The article isn't very good, but I'd prefer to expand that article, instead of creating new articles.
Your proposal to split the table for a periodized article is very confusing, I though you wanted to keep it together: because if you can accept splitting it up: why not functionally in stead of periodically: i.e. split it in to cabinets, parliaments and prime ministers?
And still I doubt whether anybody will read the template: it is still riddled with mistakes, misconceptions, unclarities, illegibility, in need of an enormous legenda. Let me just make a list of some of them:

1. It uses years, giving the impression that the cabinet is installed in the year the elections were held, this is mistaken, it will not happen in 2006-7 and it did not happen in 1972-3.
2. It measures terms in months, giving the impression that these matter: the terms should be measured in days, because that is the period which is constitutionally used.
3. It uses footnotes to show what type of cabinets these are, instead of making a collumn for it.
4. It mixes both the formation of new cabinets without elections, with the formation of cabinet with elections, and has no clear way to separate the two: this is extremely confusing.
5. It misses some splits from parties within terms, like Wilders' before the formation of the third cabinet Balkenende .
6. It feels forced to mention which party split from which party, but misses half a dozen mergers and splits (PvdA merged, PPR split VVD merged, EVP split, RPF split, GPV split, LPF split).
7. It feels forced to explicit two abbreviations, but not the rest.
8. It assumes that there was no parliament between 1945 and 1946 (the years belong to the cabinet Schermerhorn) while actually the 1939 parliament was in session then.
9. It has a special line for the expansion of parliament in 1956 again creating confusion.
10. It mistakenly assumes that the NMP stopped entering in elections in 1973, the BP stopped entering in elections in 1977, the AOV in 1998 while they all continued to contest. The SP already contested in 1977
11. Changes in the composition in parliaments is actually measured in political science by electoral volatility and not seat changes.
12. It has percentages of support behind extraparliamentary cabinets, which actually were not based on parliamentary support.
13. It feels forced to point out that the cabinet Schermerhorn is appointed by the Queen: all cabinets are appointed by the Queen.
14. It misses the formation of the CU in its seat change numbers: BTW the using brackets bit there: very confusing.
15. It still needs a huge legenda, which confusing
16. It has colour coding, which is both confusing and dis-advised.
17. The table is split in the year 1977 which seems to imply that is a historic year, while actually it isn't.

Some of these things are amendable, but most depend on the mistaken assumption of the entire template that elections, parliamentary composition and cabinets are inherently linked, while the linkages between them are much weaker than you assume, breaking it up in different tables better reflects the parliamentary history and the constitutional make up of the Netherlands: that has already been done in the separate tables on the prime minister, tweede kamer and cabinet. - C mon 10:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Charter (Statute) for the Kingdom

I just created a new article Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which apparently is the official name of the Statute according to the ministry of Internal Affairs). Please critically review (and edit).--Dengo 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NVD?

Why is the NVD not listed in the list of Dutch political parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.106.141 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a discussion for this page. Probably because they never participated in an election. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of the Netherlands" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There is No government section of the "Outline of the Netherlands". And in any case, the original creator of such a (future) article should make sure it is correct, and not go out and canvassing everywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell the bot it is not done to correct its own typing mistakes AFTER someone has already replied... Let alone editing another users' talk page edits...... (Not much of a problem here... Although a bot dalin tasks without a human editor first looking whether they need to be done..... Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re assess

The article was recently re=assessed as stub. A stub is the following

A very basic description of the topic. The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.

It is very clear to me that the article is way beyond this point. Therefore I re-assessed as start. There remains, however, the issue that even for a start article this one is terribly under-referenced. Most information can probably be taken from the 3 (official) external links, but inline referencing will be needed. Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision

@Kamal 030343 102.91.46.116 (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)