Talk:Scandinavian welfare model

This page is an edited hash of The Nordic Model page. I'd recommend it be merged. Dunwidda (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was written as an advertisement/propaganda piece rather than a NPOV article

The article in its previous version read as an advertisement/propaganda piece rather that a NPOV Wikipedia article. It had many occurances of weasel words, claiming that unnamed persons argue this or that, and generally praise that subject rather than describe it in the neutral tone that Wikipedia should try to achieve. Not to mention the fact that the article makes numerous controversial assertions without providing any sources whatsoever.

I write this under the assumption of good faith, hoping that we can work together to help improve the article. Sarnalios (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can start by both admitting we're biased one way or the other. I believe that Scandinavian Welfare represents a huge improvement over other welfare models, while you clearly wish to downplay its success. What are the 'controversial assertions' that you have a particular problem with? The only thing that you did in your revision is delete some of the non-sourced praise, and add more non-sourced criticisms. I fail to see how this is a valiant effort to achieve neutrality on your part. CABlankenship (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with Sarnalios, this article is clearly biased in favour of this system. And I consider myself a social democrat.82.30.33.21 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Scandinavians if this works or not - Me, January 2009

I'm from one of the Scandinavian countries, but you don't have to be from one of those countries to recognize that this article is not a NPOV article. The best course of action would be a complete re-write based only on verifiable sources. Sarnalios (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe any references as to whether the model is "successful" or not should be covered in a separate 'pro/con' section. --Nurax (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]