Talk:Second Balkenende cabinet

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

While Radiant! put up the clean up notice as was radically revising the article, following the POV-revision of Daanschr (which he removed himself). I've tried to remove criticism from discribtion of policy and to order the article better. Expecting that to be the clean up Radiant! requested, I've removed the notice

-User:C_mon 1u40 January 21 2006

Without exception all Dutch employees will be forced to work until they have become 65, possibly longer.

I'm not sure that this is true. If an employee wins a lottery, or just saves a lot of money, and can survive until 65 without a pension, I don't think the government can/will do much about it. Peking Duck 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is POV, because legislation is inacted to make it possible for employees to save money in a scheme ('Levensloopregeling', 'Live-path-Scheme'??). This money can be used for a long holiday, caring for children of ealderly over a longer time, or earlier retirement. The only difference with the older VUT-scheme is there is no employer who pays the bill and can make it a must.

debate

Should this be included somewhere, from [1]:

De heer Van Beek (VVD): Ik begrijp heel goed waarom u die verklaring nodig had, maar ik heb nog een vraag. De op een na laatste zin van de verklaring luidt: Het gaat hier echter om feiten die de minister niet bekend konden zijn en ik heb er volledig begrip voor dat zij heeft gehandeld zoals zij heeft gedaan. Die zin lijkt mij niet nodig voor de volledige besluitvorming. Ware het denkbaar geweest om die verklaring tot stand te brengen zonder dat er deze zin in stond?

Minister Balkenende: Dat zou denkbaar zijn geweest. Dit was echter een verklaring waarmee ook de minister voor V en I moest kunnen leven. Daarover is in het overleg met de bewindslieden gesproken. Die verklaring is voorgelegd aan de advocaat en dat heeft geleid tot een verandering. Ook daarover is normaal gesproken. Essentieel is de correctie van het beeld van de Zembla-uitzending en het verhaal van het willen gebruiken van de naam Hirsi Ali.

De heer Van Beek (VVD): Hadden de correcties betrekking op deze passage of op andere?

Minister Balkenende: Op deze passage.

This exchange of words resulted in D66 supporting the GroenLinks motion. Intangible 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

These are a mess. The formatting needs overhaul (see {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} for simplicity), foreign language sources need language icons and title translations. Circeus 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did some rework, the {{cite news}} is too labor intensive, titles require translations? the purpose of citations in my view is for fact checking, needs to be done by those familiar with the language anyway. The content of the citation should be processed in the article itself. Any thoughts? V8rik 15:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Title translation is just a curtesy, in my opinion, so that english readers can get a gist of the thing, even if they don't go and read it. Pretty much the same as providing transliterations of foreign alphabets, I believe. The refs look much better now, in any case. Circeus 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

Hi all, my suggestion is that 2003 Dutch cabinet formation be merged into this page. Almost all of the information in 2003 Dutch cabinet formation is already repeated in this article with little additional information. No sources have been cited in 2003 Dutch cabinet formation either. I propose that the pages merge so there is no double up of information.CPS-9444 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much more can be said about such a formation than what has been so far, see for example 2021 Dutch cabinet formation. Merging those pages discourages the addition of new information about this formation. Dajasj (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]